What a waste of words... what is the need to do this in the face of ongoing legalization efforts while CA just created a legal market? WA state is the furthest from anyone's minds even if die-hard prohibitionists wanted all out war. CA and CO would be first.

No fucking way they come after weed, Trump is about making money and once they get wise to how much money this will bring in to the fed it wont be stopped. Im a day trader, weed stocks are trading at sub $5 levels and some are under $1. When the fed allows medical consumption those stocks are jumping 1000's of % and will be gobbled up by big pharma and the rich will just get richer.

Instead of offering the feds some of the tax money, why not just cut to the chase and bribe Trump directly? Have all the legalization groups host their conferences at Trump properties, and/or make donations to his "charitable foundation". It's very clear that he's operating a pay-to-play racket, so spend your money effectively.

Typical stoner bullshit.

Look, I don't smoke weed. Haven't in decades. I voted for I-502. I didn't do this because I wanted to get high, or because of some babbling nonsense about hemp.

I did it because locking up 18 year old college kids who aren't hurting anyone is stupid.

And whether its legal or not, most 18 year old college kids smoke pot. Even in very conservative states. Even in states with draconian drug laws. It doesn't matter how illegal you make it, or how many DARE programs you host, kids will always get high.

All you accomplish by locking them up is you ruin their lives. They get a criminal record which nullifies the effect a diploma will have on finding work. They still have to eat, even though they cant get a decent paying job anymore, so now they steal cars.

Now I hear some middle aged ex-hippie having a freak out and yelling at everyone to flush the stash because the cops are coming. Fucking great. This asshole wants to go back to locking the kids up again just to avoid having to battle the DEA in court.

Fuck you, man. If you look at FBI crime statistics, Seattle (and the greater metro area) are nowhere on the list for murder, rape or assault/battery. We do rank number 5 in the nation for car theft. Seattle kids would never punch you in the face. But they'll totally steal your car. And you want to make it worse, by flooding the streets with unemployable young men who are too mellow to hurt anybody, but too hungry to not steal your goddamn car.

Fucking hippie. I hope your car gets jacked for writing this.

@4: You seem to have some serious problems in the reading comprehension arena. Far from wanting "to go back to locking the kids up again just to avoid having to battle the DEA in court". the point here is that by simply removing any mention of cannabis at all from Washington laws and regulations you actually go further than 502. That is the nuclear option against the feds. If there are no laws about it, cannabis becomes just another commodity like socks: anyone can sell it to anyone they want. Anyone can possess. 502 and other legal cannabis states have all sorts if regulations and restrictions regarding sales, possession, and use. Some of which I find crazy (such as only for over 21 year olds), but are part of the compromise. Removing any reference to cannabis at all undoes all of those compromises

Nope.

Um, ever hear of states rights? That's the way we need to go, that's basically what we are operating under but now we may need to take it further. There will many things to go to battle over in the next four years and this is just one of them.

How about that anti-commandeering doctrine? That's the one that says that the Federal government can't force the States to adopt laws which the Feds prefer. It's also the one that says that the Feds can't hijack State agents or employees to enforce Federal law. Something fun to ponder is Article 3 Section 3.5 of the California State Constitution:

SEC. 3.5. An administrative agency, including an administrative agency created by the Constitution or an initiative statute, has no power:

(a) To declare a statute unenforceable, or refuse to enforce a statute, on the basis of it being unconstitutional unless an appellate court has made a determination that such statute is unconstitutional;
(b) To declare a statute unconstitutional;
(c) To declare a statute unenforceable, or to refuse to enforce a statute on the basis that federal law or federal regulations prohibit the enforcement of such statute unless an appellate court has made a determination that the enforcement of such statute is prohibited by federal law or federal regulations.

I agree with Holcomb. If they don't listen to her they could find all drugs are now legal because our whole state CSA is unconstitutional anyway. We did not make that law and our state constitution says our laws have to be made by referendum, Initiative and by legislature. Our state adopted the drug schedules by reference. The state CSA was developed by a private organization. No wonder heroin is in the same schedule as marijuana.

The anti- commandeering doctrine will not help because we volunteered to join the federal scheme. The courts will overturn our system. We have to quit their scheme to fight like Montana and New York fought off the Nuke waste and Brady bun law. We can;t join their scheme and then change it we have to drop out of it to be able to take advantage of the anti commandeering doctrine.

Burn, baby, burn!

I'm hoping that Trump will pressure Sessions into petitioning the DEA to have cannabis removed from schedule 1. It is after all very good for business.

Eliminate all state laws prohibiting adult use of marijuana? That sounds familiar. Oh, yes, now I remember. That's what Sensible Washington started preaching in 2011. They even tried the initiative process, but I-502 got the $$ to make the ballot.

What about when the new administration simply hires mercenaries aka private contractors to be their hit men? Private security and armed militias were hired and still are to work in foreign countries. Why wouldn't the new administration use them on American soil? It would be terrible. Armed thugs we can't fire because they're Federal contractors.
NO. Bad idea.
The states need to thumb their noses at a prohibitionist Fed as they have done. Give them no leverage.

@2 "No fucking way they come after weed, Trump is about making money and once they get wise to how much money this will bring in to the fed it wont be stopped."

This demonstrates a complete failure to understand not just Trump* but the modern Republican party: they're resolutely not in favor of whatever makes (someone) money; they're in favor of what makes money for the right people. They're not free market capitalists, they're crony capitalists. Is the marijuana industry their cronies? Not betting on it. Taking away a revenue source for states that actually nominally believe in functional governments would be a bonus. The notion that legal weed is safe simply because it's lucrative could hardly be more naive.

*And stop focusing on Trump. If he were the decision-maker, the suspicion that he might leave legal marijuana alone. But he's elevated Sessions to that position--a confederate reactionary who'll have considerably more autonomy than almost any other member of Trump's cabinet. For people like sessions, the racially charged nature of enforcement of prohibition is a feature, not a bug.

Let's not forget the real reason alcohol prohibition failed; it was ridiculously easy to make at home; tax-free. With cannabis legalization spreading like wildfire, thousands of Americans have already discovered that this plant is only slightly more difficult to grow than a Chia Pet.

45 years ago we tried to get the BLOSSOM initiative on the ballot. (Basic Liberation Of the Smokers and Sympathizers Of Marijuana) and had gathered more than twice the needed number of signatures when goons, probably under the direction of J. Edgar Hoover, stole the petitions from a station wagon in Olympia while we were in the Secretary of State offices arranging to turn them in. Almost the entire text of the initiative dealt with the details of erasing the word "marijuana" and various synonyms from the RCWs. The prohibitionists have always been terrified of this approach because the anti marijuana laws and all drug bans are unconstitutional on the face of it.