Slog Comments
Right Now: Pot Talk at City Hall!
4
you can't fool me! those Little Debbies are from the local 7-11 bakery or something...
also, is John Toker his real name?
also, is John Toker his real name?
6
Seriously, a guy named Toker and a bunch of snacks? The only way this could be more cliché is having someone named Cheech there.
11
Aw, crap! While I was busy enjoying being likable, I missed out on the most funnable part of Seattable.
12
$40 a gram? WTF. He's crazy.
If pot was legal, and you could grow it like a crop, it would be about $1.50 a pound. LIke broccoli.
If pot was legal, and you could grow it like a crop, it would be about $1.50 a pound. LIke broccoli.
14
Thanks Cienna and Eli for the recap...out of town and had to miss this. Thoroughly enjoyed your recounting and it turned out about as I expected. The anti-502 contingent truly is a special breed of crazy paranoids.
15
Well, tonight's debate confirmed my guess that I am in full support of I-502. Thank you Alison! You are an incredibly patient woman.
16
Embarrassingly bad, with cheap shots galore. The Weekly, 1970s? Say, isn't that the paper that just scooped you Cienna on your beat? You know, the guy who stole a million from City Hall - the real story? Sorry, getting stupid with a PP winner doesn't make you one.
18
The last thing we need are drivers on weed. Our traffic is too fucked already. When a machine capable of measuring blood THC content ( or whatever is required to determine someone's level of bakery) is available for mass distribution nationwide, society can develop a legal mechanism whereby those impaired drivers are punished for their crime. Until then, get good at mathematics and engineering and make a billion dollars inventing the bastard, or roll the dice and enjoy your smoke on the open road.
19
The last thing we need are drivers on weed. Our traffic is too fucked already. When a machine capable of measuring blood THC content ( or whatever is required to determine someone's level of bakery) is available for mass distribution nationwide, society can develop a legal mechanism whereby those impaired drivers are punished for their crime. Until then, get good at mathematics and engineering and make a billion dollars inventing the bastard, or roll the dice and enjoy your smoke on the open road.
20
@16. Nailed it. That was a classic Weekly investigation, something the Stranger doesn't do. But have sympathy for the poor drunken child, she's just a blogger.
21
Pandering and fear mongering, I'd be more suprised that Toker took a play from the republican party play book, if I had any respect for sensible washington. Which I don't. I was a signature gatherer for sensible washington a few years back and they were such a ass backwards group then and still are, it would seem. I attended their orientation for signature gatherers few years ago and they weren't even ready for that. They didn't even have any petitions printed out and refused to email the .pdf of it for several weeks. I even have suspicions that sensible washington is in the pockets of the medical marijuana industry.
22
Pretty funny stuff. As I explained at the outset of the debate, my pen name on sensiblewashington.org is spelled differently from my legal name, but they are pronounced the same. As long as LinkedIn knows the difference, I figure we're good.
I totally get that it's a distraction, comes off as inauthentic, and undermines the cause. (Me, I totally stopped watching the Daily Show after I found out his real name is Jon Stewart Leibowitz.) But a cannabis law reform activist, this is about as far as I'm comfortable in sticking out my neck. Ad hominem attacks aside, I feel the argument, not the messenger, should be the focus.
The misconceptions I see with I-502 are as follows:
1) I-502 is legalization.
2) There will be storefronts.
3) There will be a federal court challenge.
4) You won't get in trouble with pot in your car.
5) We can fix the DUI clause later.
If you look closely at my dry cleaning receipt (aka I-502's own DUI fact sheet), you'll see that their own chart indicates a driver at 5 ng is at no greater crash risk than a driver at 0 ng. I find that highly problematic.
For anyone who chooses to take these issues seriously, I invite you to draw your own conclusions after reading our complete analysis here: https://sensiblewashington.org/blog/i502…
I enjoy good satire as much as anyone, and I welcome your drunken jibes, as long as they're funny. For my part, things like civil liberties, patient rights, and informed voters are no laughing matter.
More...
I totally get that it's a distraction, comes off as inauthentic, and undermines the cause. (Me, I totally stopped watching the Daily Show after I found out his real name is Jon Stewart Leibowitz.) But a cannabis law reform activist, this is about as far as I'm comfortable in sticking out my neck. Ad hominem attacks aside, I feel the argument, not the messenger, should be the focus.
The misconceptions I see with I-502 are as follows:
1) I-502 is legalization.
2) There will be storefronts.
3) There will be a federal court challenge.
4) You won't get in trouble with pot in your car.
5) We can fix the DUI clause later.
If you look closely at my dry cleaning receipt (aka I-502's own DUI fact sheet), you'll see that their own chart indicates a driver at 5 ng is at no greater crash risk than a driver at 0 ng. I find that highly problematic.
For anyone who chooses to take these issues seriously, I invite you to draw your own conclusions after reading our complete analysis here: https://sensiblewashington.org/blog/i502…
I enjoy good satire as much as anyone, and I welcome your drunken jibes, as long as they're funny. For my part, things like civil liberties, patient rights, and informed voters are no laughing matter.
23
Ms. Holcomb was a coherent, on-point speaker, Toker was all over the board. Toker played to his crowd with little factual backing, and the crowd was vocal and stacked against Ms. Holcomb from the beginning. It was sad to see people who claimed to be "on the streets" with Sensible Washington personally attack her ("why will you just let them die??") and try to trap her in trick questions (the woman asking the question about passing a joint - the answer to which was 'it's illegal now, it'll still be illegal' and was taken as some sort of AHA! win by the woman who asked the question. Silly way to reason in my opinion). Shes a MOTHERFUCKING LAWYER, remember? You're a stoner that showed up stoned and tried to be smarter than her. And lost.
Anyhoo, mostly useful, except for those folks that tried to co-opt the meeting to tell their own stories. My take away was New Approach Washington = facts, logic, reason, activism backed by lawyers willing to work and Sensible Seattle = buzzwords, fear mongering, lack of clear argument and vocal emotional non-logical attacks.
I'm voting YES on I-502.
Anyhoo, mostly useful, except for those folks that tried to co-opt the meeting to tell their own stories. My take away was New Approach Washington = facts, logic, reason, activism backed by lawyers willing to work and Sensible Seattle = buzzwords, fear mongering, lack of clear argument and vocal emotional non-logical attacks.
I'm voting YES on I-502.
24
Just watched that whole "Debate" It did look like an Alison Holcomb Sand Bag Party.She sure showed her chops as a lawyer,didn't rattle a bit. This play by play was funny though.
In the End i Find the arguments against I-502 to be Poor,and to close in tactic of the Fox News crowed.
set up your talking points,and hit them Over and over,regardless of their refutation. Repetition makes "Truth"
I still find myself in awe of an allegedly pro Marijuana Organization Lobbying against Marijuana legalization(Or decriminalization if you prefer)
Makes my head spin.
ether way I'm going to vote Yes on I-502 , and i'm also going to encourage every one i talk to to do the same.
In the End i Find the arguments against I-502 to be Poor,and to close in tactic of the Fox News crowed.
set up your talking points,and hit them Over and over,regardless of their refutation. Repetition makes "Truth"
I still find myself in awe of an allegedly pro Marijuana Organization Lobbying against Marijuana legalization(Or decriminalization if you prefer)
Makes my head spin.
ether way I'm going to vote Yes on I-502 , and i'm also going to encourage every one i talk to to do the same.
25
@ 22
If you are who you claim to be, save your fear mongering for your guillible flock of delluded idiots. Every person who gets arrested from this point on is your fault, this includes medical patients as well. Why not look into this; It is illegal, in the state of washinton, to get behind the wheel under the influence of any drug. That is the law as it stands now. For them to test your blood, the arresting officer would have to bring you to a hospital or doctors office for them to actually draw the blood to test. Would you please quit spreading fear and misinformation before people start to suspect that the medical dispensaries are paying you to protect their interests at the cost of people going to jail when they shouldn't have to.
If you are who you claim to be, save your fear mongering for your guillible flock of delluded idiots. Every person who gets arrested from this point on is your fault, this includes medical patients as well. Why not look into this; It is illegal, in the state of washinton, to get behind the wheel under the influence of any drug. That is the law as it stands now. For them to test your blood, the arresting officer would have to bring you to a hospital or doctors office for them to actually draw the blood to test. Would you please quit spreading fear and misinformation before people start to suspect that the medical dispensaries are paying you to protect their interests at the cost of people going to jail when they shouldn't have to.
27
Personally, I hate the fact that I can't support I-502. I wish it were different, and I take no joy in being an 'anti'. But the voting public has a right to know what they're getting and what they're giving up. Take the time to read the analysis. I-502 is both a moderate step forward and an irrevocable step back.
I'm not surprised about the hostility here. I have similar feelings toward the 'Stoners Against Legalization' anti-Prop 19 crowd and the anti-Amendment-64 I've seen in Colorado this year. Undermining progress in the reform movement is inexcusable, and protesting a measure 'doesn't go far enough' doesn't wash with me. The only reason to oppose I-502 IMO is because it represents a net loss for cannabis consumers, which I believe it does.
Dom has leveled some pretty egregious and unfounded smears against well-meaning, longtime activists who have legitimate concerns about what everyone recognizes is a deeply flawed measure. Neither I, nor any of the people I volunteer with at Sensible Washington have ties to the black market; in fact we're working to end it. (You can say from the PDC filings that these are shoestring affairs.) Dr. Mobley, who I've not met, seems more interested in conducting science on blood levels than profit. And finally, Dom's portrayal of how Anthony Martinelli was citing the Karschner study was inaccurate (check the comments).
As for the arrest question, it's a no-win situation. Do you choose continued mass arrests for a while longer, or wrongful arrests indefinitely? I certainly don't think giving voters an informed choice makes me responsible for the harms of Prohibition. By that logic, Alison's got 20,000 under her belt for opposing I-1068 in 2010. It's a ridiculous claim. I think it's fair to say none of us really knows what's going to happen.
I believe the only in-fighting that harms this movement comes from the lack of civility and reason in our conduct. There is an important and worthwhile policy debate to be had here.
More...
I'm not surprised about the hostility here. I have similar feelings toward the 'Stoners Against Legalization' anti-Prop 19 crowd and the anti-Amendment-64 I've seen in Colorado this year. Undermining progress in the reform movement is inexcusable, and protesting a measure 'doesn't go far enough' doesn't wash with me. The only reason to oppose I-502 IMO is because it represents a net loss for cannabis consumers, which I believe it does.
Dom has leveled some pretty egregious and unfounded smears against well-meaning, longtime activists who have legitimate concerns about what everyone recognizes is a deeply flawed measure. Neither I, nor any of the people I volunteer with at Sensible Washington have ties to the black market; in fact we're working to end it. (You can say from the PDC filings that these are shoestring affairs.) Dr. Mobley, who I've not met, seems more interested in conducting science on blood levels than profit. And finally, Dom's portrayal of how Anthony Martinelli was citing the Karschner study was inaccurate (check the comments).
As for the arrest question, it's a no-win situation. Do you choose continued mass arrests for a while longer, or wrongful arrests indefinitely? I certainly don't think giving voters an informed choice makes me responsible for the harms of Prohibition. By that logic, Alison's got 20,000 under her belt for opposing I-1068 in 2010. It's a ridiculous claim. I think it's fair to say none of us really knows what's going to happen.
I believe the only in-fighting that harms this movement comes from the lack of civility and reason in our conduct. There is an important and worthwhile policy debate to be had here.
28
@ Mr. Toker.
I-502 does not make anything more illegal. Currently, whether you are a medical marijuana card carrier or a recreation user, it is illegal to drive while high. I-502 attempts to define "high," whereas now, any THC found in a driver's blood allows for a marijuana-DUI charge. This actually makes it more difficult to be charged with a DUI. Additionally, it is already illegal to possess more than an ounce of marijuana, just as it is already for somebody under 21 to possess any marijuana. Etc.
I-502 may not be your dream legislation regarding marijuana prohibition, but the status quo is not better than the law as proposed by I-502, and I think anyone who claims the status quo is better does not fully understand what the current laws mean.
I-502 does not make anything more illegal. Currently, whether you are a medical marijuana card carrier or a recreation user, it is illegal to drive while high. I-502 attempts to define "high," whereas now, any THC found in a driver's blood allows for a marijuana-DUI charge. This actually makes it more difficult to be charged with a DUI. Additionally, it is already illegal to possess more than an ounce of marijuana, just as it is already for somebody under 21 to possess any marijuana. Etc.
I-502 may not be your dream legislation regarding marijuana prohibition, but the status quo is not better than the law as proposed by I-502, and I think anyone who claims the status quo is better does not fully understand what the current laws mean.
29
I have organized a debate that will take place on Thursday the 26th at Mukilteo City Hall -7pm. We will have Marko Liias (D-21) as moderator, and John McKay will speak on behalf of the pro, and Pat Slack with argue the con, both with help from social impact/substance abuse people on either side.
It will be covered by TVW, if you can't make it, but we'd love to have lots of folks there. Most of the debate will be responses to audience questions, so bring those questions.
It will be covered by TVW, if you can't make it, but we'd love to have lots of folks there. Most of the debate will be responses to audience questions, so bring those questions.
30
The problem here is that 5ng does NOT equal impairment, and every study that NAW and Ms. Holcomb cite clearly state that 5ng cannot be used to determine impairment, due to the fact that a tolerance develops. #25 said driving while under the influence of anything is illegal, but I think it's actually driving while impaired. You can take medication and drive, however, if your medication causes you to be impaired and you drive it is illegal.
Many medications do cause impairment until the body gets used to them. Blood pressure medications are a very common cause of temporary impairment, but after the body has time to adjust to the effects, the impairment goes down and often goes away. This is know as developing a tolerance.
Doctors will often start a medication at a very low dose, and slowly increase it, to give the body time to adjust to the medication. This is know as titration. It helps decrease those nasty and impairing side effects.
For patients, cannabis works in the very same way. Patients start out at a very low dose, which often causes the euphoria like side effects. However, in time, and with slow titration, a tolerance to the medication is built up and the euphoria side effects lessen to the point of no impairment, such as Dr. Mobley has demonstrated with his patients.
It seems the real paranoia continues with this Reefer Madness type mentality that we have to punish anyone who uses cannabis and drives, no matter that they have used it medically and titrated their doses and now tolerate higher levels without impairment.
I-502 does not differentiate between the actual impaired recreational user, and the innocent patient or even chronic user who has long ago developed a tolerance. This law would convict innocent people, and no law that convicts the innocent can be called just or right. Ever.
John Toker may be a nerd, but he believes in science and facts, not manipulating numbers while counting on Washington voters being too ignorant too see the difference.
More...
Many medications do cause impairment until the body gets used to them. Blood pressure medications are a very common cause of temporary impairment, but after the body has time to adjust to the effects, the impairment goes down and often goes away. This is know as developing a tolerance.
Doctors will often start a medication at a very low dose, and slowly increase it, to give the body time to adjust to the medication. This is know as titration. It helps decrease those nasty and impairing side effects.
For patients, cannabis works in the very same way. Patients start out at a very low dose, which often causes the euphoria like side effects. However, in time, and with slow titration, a tolerance to the medication is built up and the euphoria side effects lessen to the point of no impairment, such as Dr. Mobley has demonstrated with his patients.
It seems the real paranoia continues with this Reefer Madness type mentality that we have to punish anyone who uses cannabis and drives, no matter that they have used it medically and titrated their doses and now tolerate higher levels without impairment.
I-502 does not differentiate between the actual impaired recreational user, and the innocent patient or even chronic user who has long ago developed a tolerance. This law would convict innocent people, and no law that convicts the innocent can be called just or right. Ever.
John Toker may be a nerd, but he believes in science and facts, not manipulating numbers while counting on Washington voters being too ignorant too see the difference.
31
@30
What you are saying is true, but it is no different than the way alcohol works. For somebody never drinks, .08 BAC is more than tipsy. However, a heavy drinker can be well above .08 without being impaired. No number is perfect, however an efficient legal system is impossible without clear lines.
What is frustrating about this DUI argument is this: if a person is not impaired, it is very unlikely that he or she will 1) be pulled over, 2) seemed impaired enough to rise to the level of probable cause, and 3) have 5 ng/ml in their blood. It is both unlikely and hard to believe would rise to the level of false DUI arrests.
In addition, the research that supports the 5ng level is continually overlooked by the anti-502 movement. It is not arbitrary; there is an observed correlation between 5ng and impairment in drivers. It is also the case that for most people in the studies, even the heavy daily users, the patients were back below 5ng in 2-6 hours. I think the notion that every medical marijuana patient is constantly above 5ng is a reach, and more likely the exception, not the norm.
I-502 is the only chance we have at ending marijuana prohibition because it is the only iniative that attempts to do so in a responsible way. The other iniatives have no chance. Once it is on the books, it can be amended and tweaked; it is much less controversial for state representatives to amend an existing law than to legalize marijuana, so if the people do the first part, any issues can be fixed later. (I say that, but I honestly do not feel there are issues in the proposed law. Many of the worries seem to be based on the worst case scenario happening, and it sounds far fetched.)
What you are saying is true, but it is no different than the way alcohol works. For somebody never drinks, .08 BAC is more than tipsy. However, a heavy drinker can be well above .08 without being impaired. No number is perfect, however an efficient legal system is impossible without clear lines.
What is frustrating about this DUI argument is this: if a person is not impaired, it is very unlikely that he or she will 1) be pulled over, 2) seemed impaired enough to rise to the level of probable cause, and 3) have 5 ng/ml in their blood. It is both unlikely and hard to believe would rise to the level of false DUI arrests.
In addition, the research that supports the 5ng level is continually overlooked by the anti-502 movement. It is not arbitrary; there is an observed correlation between 5ng and impairment in drivers. It is also the case that for most people in the studies, even the heavy daily users, the patients were back below 5ng in 2-6 hours. I think the notion that every medical marijuana patient is constantly above 5ng is a reach, and more likely the exception, not the norm.
I-502 is the only chance we have at ending marijuana prohibition because it is the only iniative that attempts to do so in a responsible way. The other iniatives have no chance. Once it is on the books, it can be amended and tweaked; it is much less controversial for state representatives to amend an existing law than to legalize marijuana, so if the people do the first part, any issues can be fixed later. (I say that, but I honestly do not feel there are issues in the proposed law. Many of the worries seem to be based on the worst case scenario happening, and it sounds far fetched.)
32
@30 - I think your arguments are strong, and I don't begrudge anyone casting their vote once they've taken the time to fully understand the implications. As I've said, I'll vote for any net progress. However, I consider per se DUI laws a mutation of the current prohibition--much harder to repeal and much more severe. Personally, I don't think it's worth 1-oz decrim. Even if it were, I'm not about to vote away the driving privileges of my friends and colleagues.
I would dispute that '5 ng makes it harder to be charged with a DUI'. You can still be charged and convicted at any level. The significant of 5 ng is that this becomes the level at which you can no longer dispute your impairment in court. This is really problematic when you consider that 5 ng shows zero elevation in crash risk, at least according to what little science we do have (including the chart in the I-502's own DUI fact sheet). Compare that to a .05 BAC, a legal amount of alcohol that triples your crash risk (equivalent 9 ng/ml THC according to the study cited). If we want to talk about the political necessity of pandering to a nervous mainstream, I'd be happy to have that conversation as well.
I would dispute that '5 ng makes it harder to be charged with a DUI'. You can still be charged and convicted at any level. The significant of 5 ng is that this becomes the level at which you can no longer dispute your impairment in court. This is really problematic when you consider that 5 ng shows zero elevation in crash risk, at least according to what little science we do have (including the chart in the I-502's own DUI fact sheet). Compare that to a .05 BAC, a legal amount of alcohol that triples your crash risk (equivalent 9 ng/ml THC according to the study cited). If we want to talk about the political necessity of pandering to a nervous mainstream, I'd be happy to have that conversation as well.
34
@Mr. Toker
Currently, disputing impairment is not exactly an endeavor that is likely to end in success. What it comes down to is the word of a police officer, presumed to be trained in detecting impairment in individuals, against the word of the accused. Most DUI defense cases are won proceduraly (as one of my favorite law professors used to say, "Procedure is EVERYTHING!"). The procedural victories will remain. Fighting the substance of a DUI charge, whether there is a per se definition of impairment or not, is a mostly futile endeavor.
However, say I-502 is passed into law, and somebody is charged with a DUI. If his/her THC blood level was higher than 5ng, there is still the possibility to win on a procedural basis (which was really what his/her best chances are currently anyways). But if his/her THC blood levels are below 5ng, then the defendant is likely to wn on the merits of the case, because the RCW will define impaired at 5ng/ml.
Currently, disputing impairment is not exactly an endeavor that is likely to end in success. What it comes down to is the word of a police officer, presumed to be trained in detecting impairment in individuals, against the word of the accused. Most DUI defense cases are won proceduraly (as one of my favorite law professors used to say, "Procedure is EVERYTHING!"). The procedural victories will remain. Fighting the substance of a DUI charge, whether there is a per se definition of impairment or not, is a mostly futile endeavor.
However, say I-502 is passed into law, and somebody is charged with a DUI. If his/her THC blood level was higher than 5ng, there is still the possibility to win on a procedural basis (which was really what his/her best chances are currently anyways). But if his/her THC blood levels are below 5ng, then the defendant is likely to wn on the merits of the case, because the RCW will define impaired at 5ng/ml.
35
@31 - We've studied the science quite closely, actually, and I-502 throws it out the window. Epidemiological studies do indicate that overall (not case-controlled) crash risk begins to increase at 5 ng. But it also says that 5 ng (again, overall) is equal to the baseline risk at 0 ng.
NORML Deputy Director Paul Armentano's white paper "Cannabis and Driving: A Rational Review" is a must read:
http://norml.org/library/item/cannabis-a…
To your first point, a review of literature clearly shows that there is no clear correlation with THC in the blood and impairment like there is with alcohol. "Overall...studies have been inconclusive, a determination reached by several other recent reviewers. Similar disagreement has never existed in the literature on alcohol use and crash risk." (Sewell et al, 2009, Am. J. Addict.) Even Grotenhermen, cited by NAW, states "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."
Simply put, New Approach Washington has not solved the longstanding problem of how to measure impairment from cannabis.
A seat belt violation or a broken tail light will get you pulled over. Bloodshot eyes or the smell of pot will be sufficient probable cause to a "Drug Recognition Expert". Local patients are reporting waking levels of THC in the blood well above this proposed limit.
NAW relies on the "most people" argument, which is true. But 'most people' aren't heavy daily tokers, and wrongful arrests will undoubtedly occur. Now, none of us knows the future, but I personally don't expect it will be anywhere near as many as the possession busts we see today. So the question becomes 'How many wrongful patient convictions are we willing to tolerate?' It's important, because once this per se DUI is on the books, it's going to be next to impossible to repeal.
Lastly, I-502 does not end marijuana prohibition. Cannabis would still be every bit a controlled substance, so the hard work of repeal will continue in any case. I'm supporting Amendment 64 in Colorado--it allows home grow without a per se DUI clause. It will set a much better statewide precedent for ending prohibition than I-502.
Thanks for the civil discourse and thought-provoking dialogue.
More...
NORML Deputy Director Paul Armentano's white paper "Cannabis and Driving: A Rational Review" is a must read:
http://norml.org/library/item/cannabis-a…
To your first point, a review of literature clearly shows that there is no clear correlation with THC in the blood and impairment like there is with alcohol. "Overall...studies have been inconclusive, a determination reached by several other recent reviewers. Similar disagreement has never existed in the literature on alcohol use and crash risk." (Sewell et al, 2009, Am. J. Addict.) Even Grotenhermen, cited by NAW, states "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."
Simply put, New Approach Washington has not solved the longstanding problem of how to measure impairment from cannabis.
A seat belt violation or a broken tail light will get you pulled over. Bloodshot eyes or the smell of pot will be sufficient probable cause to a "Drug Recognition Expert". Local patients are reporting waking levels of THC in the blood well above this proposed limit.
NAW relies on the "most people" argument, which is true. But 'most people' aren't heavy daily tokers, and wrongful arrests will undoubtedly occur. Now, none of us knows the future, but I personally don't expect it will be anywhere near as many as the possession busts we see today. So the question becomes 'How many wrongful patient convictions are we willing to tolerate?' It's important, because once this per se DUI is on the books, it's going to be next to impossible to repeal.
Lastly, I-502 does not end marijuana prohibition. Cannabis would still be every bit a controlled substance, so the hard work of repeal will continue in any case. I'm supporting Amendment 64 in Colorado--it allows home grow without a per se DUI clause. It will set a much better statewide precedent for ending prohibition than I-502.
Thanks for the civil discourse and thought-provoking dialogue.
36
@34 - I think on this point we need to agree to disagree. My understanding is that it's almost impossible to get a judge to grant a motion to suppress without first appealing a guilty verdict.
5 ng creates a 'strict liability', which means once you cross the line, it's end of discussion. No expert testimony on the lack of scientific consensus, and crucially no more burden of proof on the state to demonstrate impairment. Under I-502, that burden goes out the window for anyone at 5 ng or above. There's no way that constitutes a net gain of civil liberties for cannabis consumers. Far from it.
5 ng creates a 'strict liability', which means once you cross the line, it's end of discussion. No expert testimony on the lack of scientific consensus, and crucially no more burden of proof on the state to demonstrate impairment. Under I-502, that burden goes out the window for anyone at 5 ng or above. There's no way that constitutes a net gain of civil liberties for cannabis consumers. Far from it.
37
Add to that the ever-increasing dependence on cities and counties to balance their budgets with fines to citizens, and you have a recipe for huge abuses. DUI's are big money makers for local governments in the form of fines and fees. One only has to look at the problems with police abuses of late to see that this is just another way to harass, intimidate and further molest cannabis patients.
Let's talk about priorities. Let's talk about Need, not Greed. I-502 serves a greedy political machine that knows no end to using loopholes and manipulations of science and the law to incriminate the innocent, under the false guise of legalization.
If we don't start taking care of each other, there will not be any of us left to take care of.
Let's talk about priorities. Let's talk about Need, not Greed. I-502 serves a greedy political machine that knows no end to using loopholes and manipulations of science and the law to incriminate the innocent, under the false guise of legalization.
If we don't start taking care of each other, there will not be any of us left to take care of.
38
Wow, what a lack of class. Motherfuck this, motherfuck that, misspelled names, mindless comments, a nonesensical 'report' with no clue about what happened. Why did you do this? Consider the Pulitzer revoked.
39
@ 38
Did you sign up just to post that or are you Toker being as passive aggressive as he (you?) is a fear mongerer?
If not and you find the use of the word fuck to be offensive, this might not be the best forum for you. I'd suggest the forum over at the hello kitty website might be more to your liking. If you are Toker, put a sock or a pipe in it and shut up, kthnxbai!!! >.
Did you sign up just to post that or are you Toker being as passive aggressive as he (you?) is a fear mongerer?
If not and you find the use of the word fuck to be offensive, this might not be the best forum for you. I'd suggest the forum over at the hello kitty website might be more to your liking. If you are Toker, put a sock or a pipe in it and shut up, kthnxbai!!! >.
40
Does anyone else understand the nonsensical comment above? We tend to agree with comment #38. It's never a good thing when "news coverage" begins with a disclaimer about drunkenness.
41
Bear in mind, Stranger writers, that it is the medical cannabis growers and business operators that have been contributing to your salary lately. The less tax money we give to the state, the more money goes to you and your awesome publication.
42
Bear in mind, Stranger writers, it is the medical cannabis growers and business operators who have contributed to your salary lately. The less we pay in tax to the State, the more we can contribute to you and your fine publication.
Comments (43) RSS