Swung on and belted! And Holcomb hits that ball completely out of the park. It's a grand slam.

Nice article.

But ... what about under 21 year olds who want to drive hot rods real fast while tweeting and stoned?

They would be arrested!

Maybe because their turn blinkers were on, but still, won't someone think of the bicyclist-killing under-21 stoned car-driving youth?

(wait, where did the sarcasm tag go again?)

Alison owned it.

Concise and effective! Shame that the opponents will continue burying their heads in the sand and/or being willfully ignorant.

@5 I don't really care about opponents burying their heads and being willfully ignorant; it's their misinformation/paranoia campaign that I have a problem with.

1. Oopsie, you forgot a few important things:
a) 90 day suspension of license
b) 8 hours of DUI school
c) Can no longer travel to Canada, Mexico, ...

11. FALSE. The science has demonstrated:
a) No clear relationship between marijuana use and driving impairment.
b) THC blood concentration is an extremely poor marker of just about any measure of impairment.
c) Many people have THC level of 5ng or higher even 12 hours or more after smoking.

You should have done the right thing and left DUI law alone, even if you believed that would make it harder to pass.

Instead, you've crafted an initiative that trades the right to drive for the (if you ignore the feds) right to possess, and throws all pot smokers under the bus, not just medical patients.

Thanks!

@1-@6:
Where are you getting your information, from Dominic Holden? Might wanna diversify your reading on this subject just a bit, perhaps starting here.

@3 I don't think you are not reading this law correctly. For the under 21s, any level of THC at all is a per se DUI violation, without any showing of impairment. It is weird that a paper so focused on young people of all ages is making light of this provision.

A lot of the anti-502 people will NEVER vote for anything like I-502, because they are connected to the medical marijuana grey market, and they are protecting their pocketbooks.

The DUI issue for these people is just a smoke screen*. If it wasn't the DUI thing it would be something else.

The good news is that these people don't make up a huge part of the voting public. The people who need to be convinced (and who make up a much larger segment of voters) are exactly the sort of people this sort of argument is helpful to convince.

*Pun intended.

@3 From Michelejohn at a previous thread:

"My son is 20 and is a medical patient (and he NEEDS his medicine i promise you that) and drives every day to work and school, and the fact that this law would stop him from EVER driving is so not fair, and to have zero tolerance for someone that VOTERS said can possess medical cannabis is wrong.

What you all don't understand is that if this passes, it will give so much ammo to the national movement to get a per se policy, and then we're fucked. Please think twice about this initiative...please!"

This law has all sorts of ramifications like this that the per se rule gives rise to, even without the draconian provisions for under 21s. Prosecutions for under 21s will certainly jump dramatically. Driving funny because of eating a hamburger will give rise to cause to request a blood test - then the casual under 21 user will be fucked if they do and fucked if they don't agree to the test, because they could have used the day before and get a readable positive.

@7: "11. FALSE. The science has demonstrated:
a) No clear relationship between marijuana use and driving impairment.
b) THC blood concentration is an extremely poor marker of just about any measure of impairment.
c) Many people have THC level of 5ng or higher even 12 hours or more after smoking. "

The studies quoted to "prove" this, don't indicate this.

@11: "Driving funny because of eating a hamburger will give rise to cause to request a blood test -"

They can ALREADY DO THIS. Fucking hell.

@10: Bullshit. The same people selling medical pot to patients will be selling recreational pot to everyone if this initiative passes.

The reason pot smokers (not just medical) are against the law is that it takes away their right to drive.

The medical community includes many of the leading pot activists in the state, so that's why they are leading the campaign against I-502. That doesn't mean it's just medical people that oppose it, and as more info about this gets out there, opposition numbers will increase.

Anyway, I'll bet anyone here $500 that it will fail.

@12: Sorry, you'll need to clarify your comment if you intend for me to understand what you mean.

@13: Great, so we all agree that 5) in Alison's post is essentially meaningless.

"7. After I-502 passes, possession of up to 1 oz. of bud, 16 oz. of infused solids, 72 oz. of infused liquid, or any combination of those amounts, will no longer be a crime and therefore no longer provide probable cause for an arrest, the first requirement an officer must satisfy before taking you in for a test." So therefore a routine traffic stop would yield no probable cause for a test and you would have nothing to worry about. On the other hand if your driving like anidiot endangering yourself and/or others that would be grounds for arrest which would allow for a test. And in my opinion well deserved. I myself am a patient and a registered voter and I'm in favor of I-502.

@11

I understand you may be concerned about your son but keep in mind in order for him to even be pulled over a lot has to go into it and that is why you rarely hear about people getting pulled over because the officer thought he was stoned. Also some people seem to think that RCW 69.51A would magically disappear if I-502 is passed. It is my understanding that it would have to be specfically stated that it is removing washingtons medical marijuana laws, which is does not. Which means for ALL THE PEOPLE COMPLAINING ABOUT WHAT ABOUT PATIENTS BETWEEN 18-21, PEOPLE SHOULD DO A LITTLE RESEARCH IN HOW THE LAW WORKS. Those patients would still be able to obtain their meds legally and be rcw compliant patients

@13, yes they can already do this, BUT they can't give you a DUI as an under 21 for trace levels of THC in your blood because you got stoned yesterday.

@15: http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archive…

@14: If you're right, and this thing fails because of an unholy alliance of pro-pot all the time no DUI lefty voters and drug warrior/conservative Christian teabagger voters, I guess I will have to resign myself to at least 4 more years without doing anything about the stupid drug war in this country.

I'm a priviledged, white, Seattle resident, so it probably won't be so bad for me if the drug war continues in it's current form, but I will feel back for the 10,000 people that get arrested for pot possession in this State every year.

I guess I should just wait for an absolutely perfect initiative. Sounds like a plan.

@18: in order for him to even be pulled over a lot has to go into it

Not really. He could be 1 mph over the speed limit, have a busted tail light, expired tabs, his car could be a similar model to one involved in a crime, the cop could just make some shit up because he's black, or he might have made the kind of minor traffic violation that millions of drivers do every day without fear of draconian punishment. At that point, the cop just claims he smelled weed and he's got a DUI conviction, unless of course, he has thousands to give to Alison's lawyer buddies to fight it.

@20: You think that's the only study done on this? Read the Seattle Weekly article I linked to.

@16 No, we don't agree it is meaningless. If you have a problem with the implied consent law, then DON'T DRIVE or contact your legislator to have it changed. This has nothing to do with the initiative.

@22 Jesus Christ, I've read the damned Seattle Weekly article. What are the exact points you are arguing with and how is it refuted by the SW article? BE FUCKING SPECIFIC -- IT'S FUCKING 10 PAGES LONG YOU DOLT.

Which study refutes the evidence here?

@ 19, I am by no means an expert on the subject but from what I understand the laws are currently structured as such: If anyone (under 21 or not) is pulled over, suspected of impairment and given a subsequent blood test, ANY TRACE AMOUNTS OF THC FOUND IN THEIR SYSTEM WARRANTS A DUI. Under 21 or not. So assuming 502 passes, nothing changes about those under 21s, and over 21s get the 5 ng/mL cushion that wasn't actually there before.

If you don't want to walk or take a bus, then don't get stoned and drive like an idiot. Plain and simple.

Fucking anti I-502 people, driving carefully, something you should already be doing, is too high a price to pay for fucking legalizing marijuana for all adults and helping to give real gas to national decriminalization? The cops still need probable cause you jackasses, so, um, don't give them probable cause for fucks sake. Your right to drive swervy and stoned is not more important than us finally doing something about our insane and racist drug war.

@21
My high school student son doesn't smoke marijuana for various reasons, but he has lots of friends who do and says at least half the kids at his school smoke it at one time or another. I am simply not going to vote for anything that can give those kids drug dui priors based on evidence that doesn't require proof of impaired driving that can be rebutted at trial.

Under this law, it will be easier to get a drug dui conviction on a teenager than a drug possession conviction because a conviction won't require the physical presence of any drugs. Too many youths are already denied federal financial aid for college based on a drug conviction as a teenager. I'm not going to vote to expand this group in this way.

@22, also none of the reasons for being pulled over are legitimate reasons for a blood test. Did you see/read/comprehend this?

Before your blood can be drawn, the investigating officer must satisfy three requirements: have probable cause to arrest you; have reasonable grounds to believe you have been driving under the influence (“reasonable” means he or she has to be able to describe observations that an objective person would agree suggest impairment); and further have reasonable grounds to believe that you specifically are under the influence of a drug.

Do you understand what "reasonable" means? Probably not considering the source!

@25 you are misstating the current law. The blood test currently creates rebuttable evidence. There is little incentive for a prosecutor to go into court armed only with a blood test showing trace elements of THC. That will all change, because there will be no opportunity to defend against the evidence of actual impairment.

@21: I don't understand how anyone concerned with civil liberties could dismiss the concerns raised here as coming from "pro-pot all the time no DUI lefty voters".

"they can't give you a DUI as an under 21 for trace levels of THC in your blood because you got stoned yesterday."

Actually, they can. Read the fucking law. They can give ANYONE a DUI for trace levels of THC in your blood.

Just remember this handy rule:

If the far-left (pro-pot medical marijuana folks in this case) and the far-right (conservative Christian teabaggers in this case) start agreeing on something (anti-502 in this case), they are always wrong.

@29 Oh, you mean the evidence of actual impairment that would have to exist in order to warrant a blood test? Oh, you mean that if the test was performed without 1)probable cause, 2)documented observations of impairment, and 3)reasonable grounds to suspect DUI, that the fruit of the poisoned tree (blood test) would be allowed to stand?

Get real.

@28: Where in the law is a cop's subjective claim that he smells weed ruled out as grounds for suspicion of impairment and a blood test?

@30 Because I don't think civil liberties means "I GET TO GET HIGH AND DRIVE!"

@28 Actually, I don't think you understand what "reasonable" means in real world terms of how these things work. Cops are going to have a lot of fun with this new law if it passes, especially since it will take away other means they have for arrests. Reframing the unpopular "drug war" into a "safety war"? What's not to love?

@31 is right, I have first hand experience with it. Proving impairment is a slam-dunk under current law.

@29 You are right, I forgot to mention the per se dealy mabob in my previous post. But! In order for them to have reason to give a blood test, you have to show signs of actual impairment right? So the situation you just outlined in your post is moot. In order for the blood test to be conducted, there must be an indication of impairment in the first place (which would give prosecution the extra evidence that you so gleefully dismissed).

@24: Here you go, you lazy fuck:

But a 2009 report from the Yale University School of Medicine concluded that, by and large, stoned drivers display "an increased awareness that they are impaired" and "tend to compensate effectively."

In 1993, the U.S. Department of Transportation commissioned a study entitled "Marijuana and Actual Driving Performance." In addition to observing joint-smoking drivers in action, the agency reviewed the role of drug use in fatal crashes. "In high-density urban traffic . . . THC did not impair driving performance," the findings state. "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."

Also see Mobley's study at the end of the article.

@36 And I think you have a paranoid understanding of what "reasonable" means.

“reasonable” means he or she has to be able to describe observations that an objective person would agree suggest impairment

An objective person, not a subjective police officer who is out to get you.

@30: I'm not dismissing anything. Alcohol laws are pretty screwed up in this State. They used to be even worse. I'm sure the DUI laws are screwed up too, in some ways. I'm no expert. That's why they keep changing them all the time. But none of that is an argument for making or keeping alcohol illegal. We have a political process for changing and improving our laws. Legal alcohol is the right thing to do even if the laws are imperfect.

I believe all the same stuff about pot. Let's make it legal, and then get working on improving the laws (which is going to be an ongoing process no matter what we do anyway). Refusing to start dismantling the ridiculous drug war we have going on in this country because the law is imperfect is like refusing to change anything, ever, because THE LAWS ARE ALWAYS IMPERFECT.

Will some people be hurt by imperfect laws if this thing passes? Possibly. Are tens of thousands of people hurt by keeping the current policies in place? Yes. Absolutely. No doubt about it.

Remember, we're not voting on a perfect pot legalization scheme vs. a not-perfect one. We're voting to make a major change or keep everything the way it is now. That's the actual choice before us.

The right answer seems pretty obvious to me.

@39 Dr Mobley's is not a scientific study. It is not peer-reviewed or published, it is anecdotal evidence. That's not how we do science.

"Where in the law is a cop's subjective claim that he smells weed ruled out as grounds for suspicion of impairment and a blood test? "

Ugh! What the hell is wrong with you people? That is the CURRENT LAW. "After I-502 passes, possession of up to 1 oz. of bud, 16 oz. of infused solids, 72 oz. of infused liquid, or any combination of those amounts, will no longer be a crime and therefore no longer provide probable cause for an arrest, the first requirement an officer must satisfy before taking you in for a test."

So this means once 502 passes that will no longer be an acceptable requirement. When you get pulled over now does a 12 pack of pabst constitute a breathalyzer? Nope. Normally I would let you wallow in your stupidity but when you try to spread it like the herpes, that's when I take issue with it.

@37 and @38 You are failing to note the difference between "evidence of impairment" sufficient to win at trial and "evidence of impairment" to form a basis for custodial investigation. Taking someone in for a breath or blood test is investigatory in nature. People do usually get released without dui charges after passing an alcohol breath test at the station.

@43 You are deliberately ignoring that all the other reasons that could form a basis for arrest will still be there and much more likely to result in conviction with no proven impairment because of the per se rule for conviction you support.

@45 Like what? Erratic driving? Not using your turn signal? Here's a thought... If you're stoned (or you smoke a lot of dope), don't drive like it and you won't have any issues.

@45. What are the other reasons? Please list them.

7. For one, it is absolutely not true that I-502 changes probable cause laws in any manner, as any degree of cannabis (including the smell) would still be complete probably cause for a search, as there is a designated limit that officers will be allowed to check for (unlike Russ Belville's comparison to beer, which you can possess an unlimited amount of).

8. This is extremely misleading, as patients, under 69.51a, are allowed to legally possess 24 ounces, grow 15 plants, etc. Given this, it's quite a stretch to say that patients will have arrest protection without a registry because they can possess 4% of what voters decided they could possess.

11. A link to a selective factsheet from your own organizaton is hardly "science". To show the other side here are some links that people should visit and read up about:

http://www.patientsagainsti502.org/resou… -
http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archive…
http://www.patientsagainsti502.org/media…
http://norml.org/pdf_files/MMIG_Workgrou…
http://blogs.westword.com/latestword/201…
http://www.thejointblog.com/naw-dui-limi…
http://norml.org/library/item/you-are-go…
http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archive…

Beyond this, whatever it is that is said in support of the per se policy, it's still exactly what the White House wants on a national level, and they want it because it's far easier to prosecute those with drugs in their system that may otherwise be unimpaired and would be able to properly defend themselves in court. This is from the White House's own website on their top steps towards trying to "combat" drugged driving (http://www.whitehouse.gov/ondcp/drugged-…

- "Encouraging states to adopt Per Se drug impairment laws" (***this will be SO much easier if they feel they even have the support of the legalization community***);
- "Collecting further data on drugged driving;"
- "Providing increased training to law enforcement on identifying drugged drivers;"

I think it's safe to assume that the White House and Drug Czar don't have our best interests in mind when supporting a per se policy, and there are very clear reasons that groups like NORML and MPP are fighting so hard to stop it in states like Colorado: http://www.capwiz.com/norml2/issues/aler…

If you want to make the argument that the per se limit is worth the 1 ounce decrim, than that's one argument (and one I'm willing to debate), but please don't try and make it appear as if per se DUID laws aren't inherently unfair, because all you're doing is giving ammo to groups and figures like the Drug Czar who so clearly want a national per se policy, and that so many in the reform movement have so adamantly fought against for years.

seandr, what's your angle on this? You're clearly going against the tide.

Do you own or work in a dispensary? Are you a grower? Dealer? You clearly have some sort of a vested interest in the current status quo and I'd love to hear why.

1. What you are saying is the penalty for DUI is WORSE than the penalty for pot possession.

2. Because of said implied consent law, refusing to submit to a blood test means an immediate 90-day license suspension

3. BAC being a marker of impairment is actually supported by science, unlike THC blood testing, which cannot be consistently correlated with impairment.

4. Precisely the problem. Once I-502 establishes a zero exception per se DUI law, it will be nearly impossible to reverse

5. Police can find hundreds of ways to secure probable cause, none of which require a driver to be impaired

6. I-502 encourages police to further exploit and harass drivers under 21 as well as cannabis patients

7. I-502 does not make it legal to possess a single plant or anything over one ounce. Therefore, the smell of pot will absolutely still be considered probable cause. How are police to know if you're carrying a legal ounce, an illegal ounce and and a half or an illegal plant? Better search the car. Legal to use and illegal to have in your bloodstream? Better take a blood sample just to be sure.

8. Patients are forced to trade their driving privileges instead of their personal privacy to get NAW's arrest protection

9. Cops need only earn a certification from the state toxicologist to be able to draw blood in compliance with RCW 46.61.506

10. Active or otherwise, I-502's 5 ng/ml limit for THC will undoubtedly cause unimpaired drivers to be wrongfully convicted. The 0 ng/ml threshold proposed in I-502 is infinitely worse.

11. If science supports these levels, why do even your supporters call I-502's DUIC provision "arbitrary, unnecessary and unscientific?" Better yet, why did Rep. Roger Goodman withdraw a bill that called for an even higher threshold. According to his interview with the Seattle Weekly, Goodman withdrew his own proposal when PROSECUTORS raised concerns that the 8ng/ml limit was not indicative of impairment.

12. You are stating how the law works now. I-502 changes the requirement to establish proof of impairment, instead requiring only a THC-positive blood sample. There will be no more plea bargains because prosecutors will have no incentive to offer them when they know they have an open and shut case.

If you have any further questions, please refer to the multitude of information found under the "resources" tab at www.patientsagainsti502.org

Dominic, in the interest of equal time campaign rules, perhaps you might consider promoting this comment and making it an article, much like you did with Russ Belville's comment on Anthony Martinelli's op-ed.

Patients against 502, while I respect your position (if I was a patient I wouldn't have any reason to be for legalization either) but why should I, along with thousands of other people be at risk for arrest and prosecution all so you can keep your right to drive while having active THC in your system? I agree, the bill as written isn't perfect, but sometimes you have to compromise in order to get mainstream support. The fact of the matter is I've been watching sensible washington try and fail to get decriminalization on the ballot for quite some time now. Alcohol is not completely decriminalized, neither is tobacco, what makes you think it's ever going to be a possibility for marijuana?

I am not ok with the vast majority of my peers being subject to arrest each and every day all so a select few individuals can drive with active THC in their blood....

@47: @46 just did. For example, I witnessed a DUI trial whose only evidence of impaired driving was forgetting to turn on headlights for 2 blocks on lighted streets downtown.

Hell, I drove for 4 miles on city streets two weeks ago without my lights on. That's easily enough to take you to trial after refusing a test, let alone reason to take you in. The police have immense discretion on taking people in for DUI, but they generally won't bother if they don't think they have some chance of a conviction. With a per se rule, police are going to have a huge incentive to take in under 21s because of the high odds of getting a trace THC reading, since so a huge % of under 21s smoke at times. So, yes, turn signal can easily be enough to get the ball rolling. 10 miles over the limit, failure to signal, and California stop over a 5 block distance will look like a major crime in front of a probable cause motion. Just like a huge percentage of the people drive every day here in WA.

If you think that I-502 is somehow going to take away your "right" to drive (a "right" which doesn't exist, fyi) then you need to lay off the bong.

@49 Hey, I can play that game too. Are you working for the police guild, wanting to keep up your level of easy convictions of the young and minority after you lose your pot quota convictions? Don't want to lose your tools for building priors on males in minority communities? Sounds like it. You like those easy convictions don't you?

If I-502 doesn't pass, maybe the 502 campaign should just get the stricter DUI provisions on the ballot. I'm sure that the conservatives and "think of the children" groups will rally behind it. Then they can try and get legalization passed again, and since there will already be a stricter DUI provision, the patients will have no reason to vote against it.

@55 that is exactly what we should do if it doesn't pass. You fuck me, you better goddamn believe I'm gonna do my damnedest to fuck you after this shitfest. They can kiss any support for medical marijuana goodbye as far as I'm concerned. At least if it doesn't pass, we can get the DUI provision on the books and the next best chance in 2016 can be an initiative for legalization minus the muddied water of the per se limit. And they can fight their own goddamn battle to get high and drive.

@43:

Q: does a 12 pack of pabst constitute a breathalyzer?

A: If there are a few beers missing from the 12 pack, the officer will be suspicious.

Medical MJ paitents are the worst.

Hmmmm, this study indicates cannabis IMPROVES driving for some.... http://members.iowatelecom.net/sharkhaus…

Did someone ask about probable cause?

It looks like the authors of I-502 forgot to amend RCW 10.31.10, which means the law stands in its entirety: (1) Any police officer having probable cause to believe that a person has committed or is committing a misdemeanor or gross misdemeanor, involving physical harm or threats of harm to any person or property or the unlawful taking of property or involving the use or possession of cannabis, or involving the acquisition, possession, or consumption of alcohol by a person under the age of twenty-one years under RCW 66.44.270, or involving criminal trespass under RCW 9A.52.070 or 9A.52.080, shall have the authority to arrest the person.

Hmmmm, ANOTHER pesky study which indicates cannabis helps some drive better... http://www.cannabis-med.org/english/jour…

Damnnnnn, YES, ANOTHER study suggesting cannabis is good for driving rather than bad... Maybe there is something to this.... http://beforeitsnews.com/story/1530/375/…

Google is a substitute for brains. Just google "cannabis improves driving"

@59 and @57 What vindictive assholes. Medical MJ patients have been riding point on this for you for years while your apolitical passive asses sat at home on the couch sucking the bong.

Also, it is wrong suggesting that the question about DUI provisions is just a concern of Medical MJ patients. It should concern every user of marijuana. The chemical breakdown of alcohol and marijuana are simply not interchangeable for policy purposes. And the trace THC per se provisions for under 21s should bother all people concerned with social justice and civil rights. Those provisions are tailor made for minority harassment.

Don't try to persuade me by lying about these factors. And threats really aren't going to bring people around.,

@ 9, 25, and 31

About RCW 46.61.503 and how I-502 amends it.

If you are not impaired, under 21 years old, and have less than 5ng in your system while driving, then you cannot be charged with DUI under I-502. You can be charged with being a minor operating a motor vehicle with THC in your system. This charge is a misdemeanor that does not count as a prior offense for subsequent DUI's and it is often times resolved today without a conviction. 

So, in other words, the 0 ng for under 21 rule is essentially the exact same tolerance for young people that we currently have for alcohol, except alcohol has a .02 limit due to all the products out there containing alcohol that kids can use. This is the tolerance in I-502 that opponents claim doesn't exist.

I-502's amendment of 46.61.503 RCW is a very good thing. Consider for a moment why car insurance rates are higher for young people, and this is something that has been extensively researched. There is absolutely no good reason to throw THC into the mix.

With respect to probable cause.

The distrust some marijuana users have of law enforcement is not something the general public will have sympathy for. Screaming that we can’t have a per se rule because we can’t trust cops to follow the law is not exactly the best way to bring about reform.

Lord! Now Ima hoping this passes jus' to prove these dipshits wrong.

keeke regardless of the unwarranted rudeness you shoud please look into the issue. groups like marijuana policy project and norml and all kinds of activists have tried to stop per se duid policies and its what law enforcement wants on a national level. it takes away are right to a fair trial!!

Sweet Jesus. I want to vote yes on this just so all of the superannoying MJ users will shut the hell up about legalization already. But now I'm confronted with the even more annoying people who are pro-legalization yet bitching about this DUI provision, who I'd really like to get screwed over by having this thing fail. I'm so conflicted.

Seandr @39 - You just got owned by 42. No response?

@69 you folks treating this like monster trucks or the super bowl aren't helping anything.

@ the #70: Haha.

Seriously... why aren't we simply talking about decriminalization? All these laws and bill are totally confusing this issue, which is actually quite simple... stop arresting people. Under I-502, it's legal to posses 1oz of bud? What if I have a heavy sack... what if I weigh in at 30g? Who comes up with this shit? It's all arbitrary, all laws bullshit.

I think we're over thinking this issue. We cannot regulate drugs, we've been trying to do so for decades. Laws are irrelevant, good people don't need them, and bad people don't abide by them. So, what good are they? Why do we believe we can regulate drugs? Why do we believe we should?

Is there a law legalizing tomatoes? Does anyone believe there should be any level of government involvement in the act of cultivating my tomatoes, on my private property? If I decide to make salsa with my tomatoes, should I have to get a permit, or a license to trade my salsa with my neighbors?

Government needs to get out of the drug business altogether. We have plenty of laws, many of which already regulate business operations an tax policy. We don't need to reinvent the wheel here. We simply need to get the hell out of the way.

The "legalization" movement thus far has looked far more like "monetization", rather than "legalization" efforts. The debates aren't about "legalization", they're more about ownership and control. Who can grow it, who can use it, who can sell it, who can buy it... how do we control every possible use and variation? The use of drugs are victimless "crimes", there's no need for regulation at all. If people abuse drugs, that's their problem... people abuse McDonald's everyday, how are we going to regulate and control the distribution of Big Macs? Two words... natural selection.

Legalization is easy... stop arresting people.

holy fuck, too many sockpuppets are posting.

still a federal crime.

@42 @69 - Ever heard of a N=1 study? (go ahead. Google it. We'll wait...)

Dr. Mobley not only conducted one N=1 study, much like any other physician would when you seek out medical advice, but MULTIPLE N=1 studies to show exactly how widely patient levels can vary.

This might not be your definition of science, but it is the science medical doctors have relied upon for thousands of years.

@74 really? Then why isn't he willing to discuss his research with the stranger? Why hasn't he submitted his research to a journal to be reviewed by his peers so that it can be vetted? If he's so confident about the validity of his study, why is he too chickenshit to expose it to the cold light of critical review by his peers?

@ 75 - We can't speak for Dr. Mobley, but we suspect he has stopped talking to Dominic Holden publicly for the same reason many others in the cannabis community have: they refuse to have anything to do with these I-502 shill pieces and don't want their reputations associated with such shoddy "reporting." As we saw this week, Dr. Mobley certainly has no problem discussing his findings with objective journalists like Keegan Hamilton at Seattle Weekly.

As for being confident in the validity of his work, we understand Dr. Mobley is submitting his findings for peer review and possible publication in a scientific journal. Critical review by his peers does not include political hacks at The Stranger.

@76 well, please get back to us when it is published. Until then, Mobley's insistence that what he is saying is true signifies nothing.

Seattle Weekly apparently came to the same conclusion, that Mobley's research so far proves nothing.

@76: "these I-502 shill pieces"

Anti-502ers using the word "shill", how cute.

"Dr. Mobley certainly has no problem discussing his findings with objective journalists like Keegan Hamilton at Seattle Weekly."

Science isn't only discussing one-off studies (with no controls) with credulous reporters.

then undead why dont you show us studies that the 5ng ISNT a problem? until then a lot of people who dont really understand how terrible it is still WONT support it because groups liek NORML and marijuana policy project have told them for so long to NEVER support a per se duid. so i think the pro502 group has more explaining to do then we do. after all it doesnt take much doubt in the voters mind to crash an initiative which is why alison is stooping low enough to even get in on this debate on here when she should be doing stuff with a bigger audience then the slog.

The anti-502 people's case is based on 4 things:

1) A blatant (accidental or not) failure to account for the difference between plasma THC and whole blood THC levels.

2) Reading studies and coming to the exact opposite conclusion from that of the very studies they've read.

3) "Citations" of conveniently unpublished studies that nobody else can read, and which haven't even passed peer review yet, making any citation meaningless in the meantime (maybe the results are valid, maybe not). Until the study is published, it may as well not exist; until it's published, we're all just taking Mobley's word for it, which is the OPPOSITE of scientific evidence.

4) Examples of extreme hypotheticals wherein someone very young, with a history of heavy usage, smokes a bunch and then drives right during that sweet-spot between losing your actual high and measurably dropping your blood THC levels, gets pulled over, fails a field sobriety test, gets taken for a blood draw, fails it, and goes to jail, all without actually being high. Granted, this would be terrible! However, it's so highly unlikely that it's purely hypothetical!

So until I stop seeing those same four fallacies over and over (and OVER) again, I have no reason to take the anti-502 people seriously. And it's their own fault for making these mistakes; I don't know if they're being dishonest or just plain wrong, but it makes little difference to me. Even if their conclusions turn out to be correct, it would be entirely by accident, since none of their premises (so far) have been honest or accurate.

Once again, if and when Mobley's study is published, that may change my mind on how likely this DUI limit is to land innocent people in jail. Until then, I have no reason to believe the exaggerated hypotheticals or the premature citations.

The worst thing (which I forgot to mention) is the conspiracy theory that somehow this law is just a lure to get more people arrested. Their "evidence" is to point to examples of people supporting pro se laws while *gasp* in positions of authority, so therefore there MUST be a nefarious motive behind them.

Per se laws are imperfect, but I-502 would result in vastly fewer arrests, not more (regardless of whether DUI arrests, specifically, increase). It's not a conspiracy to give cops the ability to arrest sober drivers for having weed. They already have that ability: it's called prohibition. Currently, you can be arrested with 0 ng/mL THC in your blood.

Keep that in mind when forming conspiracy theories about Drug Czars and cops that are just drooling with desire to arrest weed users.

When your guys' hypothetical studies actually come out, we can debate whether 5ng/mL (specifically) is a fair DUI limit. We can then debate whether or not a perfect DUI limit (currently unknown) has to be found before any legalization measures should be passed, or whether clauses on DUI limits can be adjusted through additional legislation after passage.

Arguing that there should be no limit at all, or that I-502 is a conspiracy by Drug Czars to arrest weed users as if they can't already, is just nonsense.

@79: "then undead why dont you show us studies that the 5ng ISNT a problem?"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of…

I love how people try to use NORML to argue against I-502 when NORML supports it (if not all aspects of it.)

I don't support all aspects of I-502. However, it's the best thing we have going, and critics have been reduced to outright lying to try and tear down the essential points. That's a sign of its success, and why their grey market is in danger.

@79 See, the funny thing here is the burden of proof is on you to prove that 5 ng/mL is a problem. So far, it seems the scientific consensus leans toward the 5 ng/mL as a reasonable expectation of impairment for the large majority of people. Did you notice that word "consensus"? That's how science is done. Many studies are done and consensus builds towards a certain conclusion. Citing one (unpublished) study here and one (informal) study there doesn't prove anything other than that you know how to use google and cherry pick to build your argument.

It doesn't mean that consensus is set in stone. When there is new compelling evidence to suggest a conclusion is wrong, then we can adjust our hypothesis. There is no reason to believe that should new published peer-reviewed evidence come forward from multiple sources/studies, rational people won't adjust their opinion.

However, it should be noted -- there are scientific realities and there are political ones. It may end up that compelling evidence comes forward that says there is absolutely no correlation between active THC content in whole blood and impairment. But the political reality is, especially right now, that we won't get to legalization without compromise. The 5ng/mL is in my opinion a reasonable political compromise to make on the road to legalization which is why I will be voting yes on 502.

@83 - Actually, as any seasoned campaign worker knows, the burden of proof is on the YES campaign. They are the ones who must convince at least 50% of voters to see their side. The NO campaign only has to convince enough people to bring the yes votes down to 49%.

Furthermore, I-502 opponents have NINETEEN independently authored studies, white papers and academic opinions which back up their assertions. Links to all of these can be found under the "resources" tab at www.patientsagainsti502.org

The only scientific consensus reached to date on cannabis-impaired driving is that THC blood levels cannot be consistently correlated to impairment. Therefore, it is unethical and "scientifically irresponsible" to assign an arbitrary number to measure THC impairment.

@84 You know, there really is nothing I can do to convince you when I point to the sky and you say it's green, and I point to the grass and you say it's blue. There have been numerous people refuting your interpretations of the findings in those studies. You're right though, the initiative does have to convince people to vote for it. What was the last poll? 57% for approval? Looks like you have your work cut out for you in convincing them otherwise.

@84 What is really great is the number of patients beginning to come forward to support 502. You're losing people who should be on your side. Good luck!

Losing people who should be on our side? You mean, the way NAW has left cannabis users with no choice but to OPPOSE I-502? Talk about people who should be on your side...

http://www.tokeofthetown.com/2011/12/sea…

http://www.tokeofthetown.com/2011/11/can…

@84: "The only scientific consensus reached to date on cannabis-impaired driving is that THC blood levels cannot be consistently correlated to impairment"

What you're saying is fundamentally incorrect, THC blood levels necessarily correlate to impairment. Unless you don't understand what "correlate" means.

@87: "left cannabis users with no choice but to OPPOSE I-502"

And that's your opinion, skewed by misunderstandings of the current law in place and what will change, not objective fact.

84: "Actually, as any seasoned campaign worker knows, the burden of proof is on the YES campaign. They are the ones who must convince at least 50% of voters to see their side. The NO campaign only has to convince enough people to bring the yes votes down to 49%. "

He means scientifically. If you claim something that goes against current scientific consensus, then the burden of proof is on you. If you lack that proof, then the fact that you're spreading misinformation anyway (and increasing the literal "burden" of the scientifically literate to correct said misinformation) is hardly a bragging point.

"Burden" and "burden of proof" are not the same thing.

New polls show I-502 at 60%.

what poll kee kee? some online poll or an actual professional poll?

Only problems I have with your article are about 10 and 11, there's no scientific data to back up what your saying, only scientific data to prove that's not the exact case. Impairment on marijuana is totally different, and even the SO-CALLED active THC isn't technically telling you how high a person is. I say though, after reading the first 9 points and nearly having an orgasm in my pants as to what carrying around an entire ounce of bud without repressions? Good lord anyone passing that up is either willingly stupid or has a stake in the game they don't want to give up. Protip, most dealers are going to do fine under these new sets of laws. Washington will become a pot Mecha and if someone really fails all 3 of those tests and their blood tests positive for an active THC AND they happened to have the kind of body chemistry where it keeps the active pot longer, as some tests showed, I'm confident they will be able to prove themselves in court. Worst case an innocent person gets a DUI, I find that super hard to believe, but even if it happens to an extreme 10 or 100 a year it's nothing compared to the drug war. Quit being a picky little bitch and vote for it, or watch at the feds take an assumption about what the people of Washington want and start cracking down on medical providers, AGAIN. Send the feds a message, and make it the biggest middle finger possible.

@94: " there's no scientific data to back up what your saying, only scientific data to prove that's not the exact case. Impairment on marijuana is totally different, and even the SO-CALLED active THC isn't technically telling you how high a person is."

The best thing about I-502 is that legalized marijuana would lead to greater funding for more accurate research, which currently isn't being done here.

A question of importance, what about the countries that HAVE decriminalized/legalized pot? What is their policy regarding driving? Is there much research?

Well, isn't being done with enough of a scale.

Here is an article I wrote exposing the missinformation put forward as truth on the No on I-502 webpage "Important Resouces" and while I have tried to address this to No on I-502, No on I-502 spokespersons and supporters. I've not gotten anything other than excusses while the mssinformation remains on the webpage propogating falsehoods, which I would like to remind everyone that it was Ansilnger, Hurst and their ilk that lied, cheated and stole their way to victory, which we now call cannabis prohibition. We can see where these tactics got the nation and we can see that these tactics will not get us out of this situation. The truth shall set us free, lies shall enshackle us.

http://trixterphillips.wordpress.com/201…

Looks like links are not available with these comments so google:

Is No on I-502’s “Important Resources” webpage an honest mistake or a blatant lie?

To find the article I tried to link to in my first comment.

@94 -

As someone who is currently dealing with a DUI, I know that I NEVER want to get one again - and if I do in the next few years, it will jeopardize any plea deal that I end up with on the one I'm now fighting. I had only had a couple of drinks, but I learned my lesson, and will NOT drink at all if I'm going to be driving, period. However, I am also a authorized medical patient. I don't smoke if going to work, if I'm going to be driving soon, etc - but I do smoke often enough at other times and have enough fat on me that my levels would likely test over, even if I hadn't smoked at all yet that day. THIS is what I (and many others) have a problem with.

Yes, the COURT portion of the DUI, you could fight. You might even get it thrown out based on constitutionality of the test or whatever. What people who have never dealt with a DUI don't realize is that there's a whole OTHER component of the process with the DOL. Their guidelines are much more strict, and far less flexible. There is no "deal with the prosecutor" with the DOL. They are just going to take your license, period. All that you have to do is test over the limit and have probable cause for being pulled over (which could be as simple as a tail light that you didn't know was out).

This isn't about people wanting to be able to smoke 5 joints and then go drive. This is about responsible users not wanting to be subject to the massive legal, financial, and personal burdens that come along with a DUI arrest and conviction.

@94 -

As someone who is currently dealing with a DUI, I know that I NEVER want to get one again - and if I do in the next few years, it will jeopardize any plea deal that I end up with on the one I'm now fighting. I had only had a couple of drinks, but I learned my lesson, and will NOT drink at all if I'm going to be driving, period. However, I am also a authorized medical patient. I don't smoke if going to work, if I'm going to be driving soon, etc - but I do smoke often enough at other times and have enough fat on me that my levels would likely test over, even if I hadn't smoked at all yet that day. THIS is what I (and many others) have a problem with.

Yes, the COURT portion of the DUI, you could fight. You might even get it thrown out based on constitutionality of the test or whatever. What people who have never dealt with a DUI don't realize is that there's a whole OTHER component of the process with the DOL. Their guidelines are much more strict, and far less flexible. There is no "deal with the prosecutor" with the DOL. They are just going to take your license, period. All that you have to do is test over the limit and have probable cause for being pulled over (which could be as simple as a tail light that you didn't know was out).

This isn't about people wanting to be able to smoke 5 joints and then go drive. This is about responsible users not wanting to be subject to the massive legal, financial, and personal burdens that come along with a DUI arrest and conviction.