Features

The Straight Dope

Ignore the Speculation and Silly Rumors—Here Are the Most Important Things You Need to Know About Washington's Vote to Legalize Marijuana

The Straight Dope

mike force

Washington State voters legalized pot last week. It was not just a gesture. It was not simply a statement. Starting on December 6, adults 21 and older may legally possess up to one ounce of pot, and the city's prosecutor says there's nothing the Feds can do about it.

This alone is the biggest blow to prohibition in 85 years. Before Initiative 502 passed here and Amendment 64 passed in Colorado last Tuesday, 90 percent of all pot arrests were solely for possession—so this will end thousands of pot arrests every year.

Still, lots of folks are spreading misinformation, and even fear. "You can't under this initiative have an ounce of marijuana that doesn't come from a state-issued provider," Jack Driscoll, the chief criminal deputy for the Spokane County prosecutor, claimed last week. The Spokesman-Review credulously printed that statement, misleading readers to believe that until the state licenses stores, you can't possess marijuana. Meanwhile, a friend complained to me that he heard police were going to use "mouth swabs" to test drivers for marijuana intoxication, and everybody who wants a driver's license will now be piss-tested at the DMV.

That's all horseshit.

Possessing pot will be legal in three weeks, it doesn't matter where you got it, and officers cannot subject drivers to roadside marijuana tests (they couldn't do that before and they still can't). If you hear something that sounds impossible about I-502, it probably is.

But there are legitimate questions. In additional to legalizing possession, I-502 triggered a complex process to create an above-board marijuana market. For the first time in US history, we'll establish state procedures for growing, licensing, and selling marijuana. Some legal experts say those regulations may potentially create a conflict with federal law, others say they won't. But put that out of your head for just a second. We'll start with the most important stuff:

Possessing Marijuana

This is why Driscoll, the county prosecutor in Spokane, was wrong when he said you need to purchase pot from a state store to possess it legally. Section 20 of I-502 states unequivocally that "possession, by a person twenty-one years of age or older, of useable marijuana or marijuana-infused products in amounts that do not exceed those set forth in section 15(3) of this act is not a violation of this section, this chapter, or any other provision of Washington state law." Those amounts, specifically? Up to one ounce of bud, 16 ounces of solid-form marijuana in food products, and 72 ounces of cannabis in liquid form (such as lotions or, like, a shocking volume of hash oil)—no matter where it came from. You can also have pot paraphernalia.

This portion of the law, explains Seattle city attorney Pete Holmes, who is a prosecutor and was a cosponsor of the initiative, "is simply not preemptable." In other words, Holmes says that the Feds may challenge the future pot stores—but not the possession portion of the law. Furthermore, "The Feds cannot make the state criminalize that kind of conduct."

Marijuana possession technically remains a federal crime, but as a practical matter, Feds don't arrest or prosecute people for small-time possession, unless people do it on federal property. Nor can the Feds make local cops or prosecutors in Washington bust people under federal law.

Sergeant Sean Whitcomb, a spokesman for the Seattle Police Department, says: "For us, the law has changed, and people can expect no enforcement for possession."

Again, just because some people will claim otherwise, Whitcomb reiterates: "What you can expect is no enforcement on possession—that is a reasonable expectation." Prosecutors in King and Pierce Counties have already dismissed 220 pending pot possession cases.

A few caveats: Pot remains illegal for people under 21. You can't smoke pot in public or have an open package of marijuana in public (just like you can't drink in public, which is a dumb rule, but that's parity with alcohol law). Using pot in public will be a $50 infraction, just like drinking whiskey on the sidewalk. You also can't drive high. These parts of the law can't be challenged by the Feds, Holmes insists.

Growing and Selling Marijuana

Anyone who tells you that they know how marijuana is going to be grown and sold—it's gonna be farmed by Monsanto, it's gonna be packaged by Marlboro, it's gonna be taxed till grams cost $100—is full up to their ears in shit. How do I know this? Because regulations haven't been made yet.

The law stipulates that the Washington State Liquor Control Board must license marijuana growers, distributors, and sellers. A rule-making process is under way and won't end until December of 2013. They'll decide things like the location of stores, hours pot can be sold, where it can be grown, rules for advertising, standards for quality, and other details. They'll be holding public hearings, so if you want a say in the outcome, go to those hearings.

But be warned: I-502 did not legalize home growing or the unlicensed selling of pot—both remain a felony. This means that until the state sets rules for a marijuana market, there's no legal way to obtain it. But let's be honest here, buying pot has never been difficult.

The Feds

Again, anyone who tells you they know what's gonna happen with the Feds is bluffing.

The US Department of Justice may challenge the part of I-502 that concerns licensing the legal marijuana market. They could file a lawsuit that seeks an injunction, thereby preventing the regulations for marijuana growing and sales from taking effect. But is their case a slam dunk? Will they file a lawsuit next month, next summer, next December when the new rules for growing and selling go into effect? Nobody knows.

Governor Chris Gregoire of Washington and Governor John Hickenlooper of Colorado have both begun talking to federal prosecutors. "Our goal is to implement the law according to the will of the voters," says Gregoire spokesman Cory Curtis, adding, "If the US Department of Justice has any clarity on their position, we'd like to know it."

If there is legal challenge, all we can be certain of is this: A federal case over how to legalize marijuana is exactly what this country needs to make marijuana legalization a mainstream issue. A federal challenge is a political opportunity.

Driving

Driving under the influence of marijuana remains illegal. I-502 says that adults 21 and older who are driving with more than five nanograms of active THC per milliliter of blood are automatically guilty of DUI. Of the handful of available scientific studies, most show people below that level after a few hours. Not one peer-reviewed study shows even the heaviest pot user above that level the next day. Officers would still require probable cause to stop someone and test their blood (just like now); blood tests could only be conducted at a medical facility.

Medical Marijuana

Can an average Joe buy pot from a medical marijuana dispensary now? Does I-502 create new rules for those dispensaries? Do authorized patients lose their right to grow pot at home? Has anything changed about medical marijuana—at all?

No, no, no, and no.

I-502 doesn't touch the state's Medical Use of Marijuana Act, passed in 1998, so the rules for dispensaries, patients, and health care providers remain the same.

But things will get better for medical marijuana patients. Before I-502 passed, patients had zero legal protection from arrest (only a defense in court). Now they won't be arrested for possession of up to an ounce, while retaining all their other rights as a patient, such as the right to grow marijuana at home.

All That Other Shit

What's gonna happen when people go to the airport? Will Washington someday be a state for marijuana tourism? How would the Supreme Court vote? Stay tuned. But tune out blowhards who claim to know the answers.recommended

 

Comments (64) RSS

Newest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
64
Proof that THC stays in your ystem longer than Dom portrays. When I had to go through court mandated rehab, two weeks after I quit using, I still had 123 ng/ml. What more proof do you want?
Posted by bigsexy on December 15, 2012 at 4:08 PM · Report this
63
I appreciate the article, especially that it is NOT just fear mongering. I think some of you people are too paranoid from smoking too much. I voted yes on502 and Im a Patient.
Posted by Mr. Foo on December 13, 2012 at 2:56 PM · Report this
62
@59: Just because they're state-chartered doesn't mean they have to allow everything on their campus that's legal in the state. I'm pretty sure "dry" state university campuses are fairly common, and alcohol's been legal for quite a while now. The obvious reasoning is the fact that about half the people in college are under-21, making it pretty obviously illegal for them to have substances.
Posted by alguna_rubia on November 27, 2012 at 2:43 PM · Report this
61 Comment Pulled (Spam) Comment Policy
60 Comment Pulled (Spam) Comment Policy
59
The state-chartered University of Washington says that cannabis will still be illegal on campus(seems they "forgot" that the U-Dub is a STATE entity,NOT a natural person a-la you and your friends!).They will be violating STATE law and beginning December 12th.
Posted by 5th Columnist on November 23, 2012 at 7:39 AM · Report this
58
@17 -- Citation please.

By the way, here is something Dominic wrote regarding several studies: http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archive…

@45 Gregoire is our governor until January (I think it is 12th).

Posted by Ross on November 21, 2012 at 10:52 AM · Report this
57
VIENNA—The head of the U.N. drug watchdog agency is urging U.S. federal officials to challenge ballot measures in Colorado and Washington that decriminalized possession of small amounts of marijuana for adults 21 and over.

Raymond Yans says the approvals send "a wrong message to the rest of the nation and it sends a wrong message abroad."

Yans heads the International Narcotics Control Board. His job depends on strict control. He told The Associated Press on Tuesday he hopes Attorney General Eric Holder "will take all the necessary measures" to ensure that marijuana possession and use remains illegal throughout the U.S.

Posted by launchme101 on November 20, 2012 at 1:38 PM · Report this
56
VIENNA—The head of the U.N. drug watchdog agency is urging U.S. federal officials to challenge ballot measures in Colorado and Washington that decriminalized possession of small amounts of marijuana for adults 21 and over.

Raymond Yans says the approvals send "a wrong message to the rest of the nation and it sends a wrong message abroad."

Yans heads the International Narcotics Control Board. He told The Associated Press on Tuesday he hopes Attorney General Eric Holder "will take all the necessary measures" to ensure that marijuana possession and use remains illegal throughout the U.S.

Posted by launchme101 on November 20, 2012 at 1:33 PM · Report this
55
Dom, I was pleased with your article and highly appreciate the information you'd provided. However, while reading, I couldn't help but wonder how the new legislation will effect me, a live-aboard sailor in Seattle. IMHO, boating should be treated much like driving a motor vehicle; blatantly operating under the influence remaining a no-no, but what about while I'm sitting peacefully in my home tethered firmly to the dock or, for that matter, simply possessing marijuana within my vessel regardless of being under the influence? I'm assuming the waterways will remain under federal legislation, but do you have any information on the USCG's/ Harbor Patrol's thoughts on the matter?
Posted by saltyseadog on November 20, 2012 at 1:24 PM · Report this
54
http://www.canorml.org/healthfacts/drugt…

so happy. i thought it was zero tolerance, which would then be impossible to prove and therefore made me nervous. but 5 nanograms means your high.

http://www.canorml.org/healthfacts/drugt…
Posted by oh! on November 17, 2012 at 11:27 PM · Report this
mtnlion 53
@50, You're correct; I am familiar with GMOs. I just mean that it is a bit naive to think our planet can't legally be owned and patented. The courts have found that GMO foods are close enough to the real thing as to not merit a label, which is totally contradictory to the notion that they are unique enough to be patented.

I also think a lot of people would be shocked to know that many of the fruits and veggies they buy are patented and didn't come to existence by good farming and petroleum alone.

Posted by mtnlion http://radicalish.wordpress.com on November 17, 2012 at 10:08 PM · Report this
DaveC 52
lol 51. Near twenty years ago i meet a guy on the road doing just that. But with pot seeds and shroom spores.

i'd like to grow hemp on family land. For purpose of hobby crafting stuffs, as well for something to out-compete the invasive blackberry, horsetail and stinging nettles. The spot is alongside rural road. Will need be legal or risk land seizure and fines which can't be paid on this income.

Though it seems that Alex Whiteplume might finally have had a legal harvest by planting certified non-thc plants. http://www.freepress.org/departments/dis…
Posted by DaveC http://https://www.facebook.com/david.coggburnii on November 17, 2012 at 7:41 PM · Report this
51
@46,be Johnny Hempseed.
Posted by 5th Columnist on November 17, 2012 at 5:53 PM · Report this
50
@mtnlion,no,the only patents that Monsanto that I know of are NOT "natural" in that they are GMOs( which are "artificial" life forms;the "M" in "GMO" means "modified",not "natural".)Although I've read that some private firms DO own PARTS of the genomes of natural life forms . . . o.O -----> http://theyrule.net
Posted by 5th Columnist on November 17, 2012 at 5:52 PM · Report this
49
Fact - Research shows that use affects cognitive functioning as much as a week after use http://www.cannabis-med.org/english/faq/…

Implication: Employers who know or should have known their employees are cannabis users, and that the effects of this use results or could result in inability to perform a task to the needed level for safely or effectiveness will very well leave that employer vulnerable to lawsuits.

* cognitive deficits appear detectable at least 7 days after heavy cannabis use
* users show significant impairments in tasks that require more complex manipulation of learned material (so-called "executive" brain functions)

This is not to suggest that a task like driving would be influenced when not high, but only that some higher level tasks are impaired for as much as a week after a test. Should McDonald's need to test --maybe not. Should a hospital - maybe so. Should an airline -- because of the fact that a pilot could be impaired 4 days after use, they may have to. If pilot error is involved in a crash, and the pilot was known to have used in the days before hand, the potential exists for the airline to be liable. For sure.
Posted by theRealityIs on November 17, 2012 at 5:19 PM · Report this
48
Fact - Research shows that use affects cognitive functioning as much as a week after use http://www.cannabis-med.org/english/faq/…

Implication: Employers who know or should have known their employees are cannabis users, and that the effects of this use results or could result in inability to perform a task to the needed level for safely or effectiveness will very well leave that employer vulnerable to lawsuits.

* cognitive deficits appear detectable at least 7 days after heavy cannabis use
* users show significant impairments in tasks that require more complex manipulation of learned material (so-called "executive" brain functions)

This is not to suggest that a task like driving would be influenced when not high, but only that some higher level tasks are impaired for as much as a week after a test. Should McDonald's need to test --maybe not. Should a hospital - maybe so. Should an airline -- because of the fact that a pilot could be impaired 4 days after use, they may have to. If pilot error is involved in a crash, and the pilot was known to have used in the days before hand, the potential exists for the airline to be liable. For sure.
Posted by theRealityIs on November 17, 2012 at 5:13 PM · Report this
DaveC 47
i am very curious to know the cities thoughts on Hemp. i seek more information if a reader would care to share. i seek to promote industrial hemp in every way i can. From protest to petitions to education towards mobilization. Whatever it takes.

My plans to grow hemp next spring might be premature. But i'm not willing to wait till 2014. So i'd like to help right now in whatever way i can. Will send a few emails to state rep, but what else is happening? i know there are people who been fighting for legalization of hemp for ages now. How to hook up with them?
Posted by DaveC http://https://www.facebook.com/david.coggburnii on November 17, 2012 at 4:01 PM · Report this
DaveC 46
i am very curious to know the cities thoughts on Hemp. i seek more information on this subject, if a reader would care to share. i seek to promote industrial hemp in every way i can. From protest to petitions to education towards mobilization. Whatever it takes.

My plans to grow hemp next spring might be premature. But i'm not willing to wait till 2014. So i'd like to help right now in whatever way i can. Will send a few emails to state rep, but what else is happening? i know there are people who been fighting for legalization of hemp for ages now. How to hook up with them?
Posted by DaveC http://https://www.facebook.com/david.coggburnii on November 17, 2012 at 3:58 PM · Report this
45
For the record, weed can and does act as a hallucinogen after heavy use. Been there, done that, and I can direct you to many people who would attest to the same.

By the way, CHRISTINE Gregoire is no longer our governor. I'm not certain you've been doing enough research.
Posted by ivvie on November 17, 2012 at 3:10 PM · Report this
mtnlion 44
@35, a thorough and lovely answer to Slave2Nannies, which is a really interesting handle. One major take away for all people who are concerned about driving: A UA and a blood test are completely different things. This law will inevitably lead to fewer possession arrests. Slave2Nannies doesn't quite grasp how the law and/or the government works, and a lot of people live in fear because of their lack of knowledge. Knowing your rights is very empowering. I also fail to see how Dominic's personal marijuana use factors into his ability to interpret and disseminate information.

@28, thanks for "nuh-uh!"

@30, of course patenting natural forms of life is legal--just ask Monsanto. And if one of their patented tomato seeds ends up in your garden, prepared to get sued. It's a fucked world we live in; just smile and take it.

Why are all the hugest stoners the ones who know the least about 502 and/or are totally misinformed about its implications?
Posted by mtnlion http://radicalish.wordpress.com on November 17, 2012 at 11:12 AM · Report this
43
Let Costco sell pot!
Posted by Erok on November 17, 2012 at 9:27 AM · Report this
42
Hi, I saw your page and it is very beautifull , I want to start a page as your ans recently I asked a web design company ELCO PLANET (www.elcoplant.com) to develope the page for me..
I was just interasted for web hosting..I can see your page http://photos.momlogic.com is stable, can you please advice me about web hosting provider..have you ever heard for www.elcoplanet.com offering hosting ? thanks a lot
Posted by Patrii on November 17, 2012 at 1:41 AM · Report this
41
@my own posting # 29:I meant "personal-privacy rights". . . .Also;remember to use jury nullification for EVERY foolish trial(local,state,AND feud .. er . . federal levels!!!)
Posted by 5th Columnist on November 16, 2012 at 9:50 PM · Report this
40
Without an accurate field sobriety test the potential for unpleasant unintended consequences of this new law strikes me as significant.

I'm guessing the thinking among nice, well-meaning liberals is that without such a test (and to be sure: it doesn't exist and isn't on the horizon) law enforcement will tend to error on the side of letting people off the hook.

There may be some truth to that in some cases but there may be other cases where people get dragged off to jail based on their inability to pass a field behavioral test (for whatever reason [not to mention the fact that the results are ultimately a judgment call not science]) or because they fail a saliva exam. (A field saliva exam at last check was under development but it will only be able to tell law enforcement if thc is present in the bloodstream not how much or how recently the person smoked it.)

As someone who has in the past suffered seizures during blood draws (it happens to some people, incidentally, and typically doesn't have anything to do with a seizure disorder or epilepsy) I find the idea of coerced blood tests by the state almost as scary as reckless stoned kids on the roads.
Posted by Anonymouse_CA on November 16, 2012 at 9:41 PM · Report this
39
I am looking forward to these ridiculous stipulations being removed once legalization has been proven to work. Even after legalization I have seen very misleading headlines on the subject on a lot of news sites. Time will prove legalization is the right thing to do. I am confident that all the lies and fears told about legalization old and new will be proven as lies and scare tactics then other drugs will be legalized as well. There is so much false information given to people who know nothing about the subject. The numbers will prove the fear mongers wrong and because of the spotlight on the subject we might be able to get some truth past the propaganda machines. Some cold hard facts should be reason enough to fine tune these stupid stipulations brought in with this much needed change of legalization.

It makes no sense to me the the president has a micro brew recipe and brews beer in the white house but I cant grow a house plant of a legal plant in my home or yard. I think the plant is very pretty and it smells nice and I would like to have one. I would like to grow a plant in my home just to look at. What is the logic behind this stupid stipulation of needing a prescription or a license. I can grow parsley sage, rosemary and thyme but not this controversial plant, ridiculous.

Maybe someday the plethora of proven chemical killers like MSG, tobacco, high fructose corn syrup, will be illegal and you will need to be 21 to purchase candy and crap like Franken food or sit at a McDonalds bar. Wouldn't that be great, Burger King, KFC,Wendy's and Jack In The Box etc... bars where they card you or weigh you before they are allowed to sell you that crap. Or maybe require you to get a prescription, have you prove a need to eat that poison. One can only dream.
Posted by house plants are nice on November 16, 2012 at 8:12 AM · Report this
38
Smoke away you dopertarians. Fred Hutch Cancer Research was wrong, your testies won't shrivel up and die.

http://www.emedicinehealth.com/script/ma…
Posted by aCultureWarrior on November 15, 2012 at 11:53 PM · Report this
37
QUESTION ABOUT TAXES!
is it true that recreational M will be taxed 25% when grower sells to distributor, taxed 25% again when distributor sells to commercial store that sells to individuals and 25% again when store sells to individual?

also, (and most important) are valid medical marijuana patients exempt from taxes when purchasing MMJ? are over-the-counter & prescription medications exempt from wa state taxes & does MMJ fall into either category?
Posted by doogiekd on November 15, 2012 at 3:01 PM · Report this
36
The route to federal legalization:

First we need several free citizens in green states who’ll testify, who can say shit like: “Hallucinogen? Who the fuck has ever hallucinated on weed?” and give other experiential evidence without fear of reprisal (to admit to a federal crime you’ve gotta talk about much more than simple consumption). We’ll gather some empirical data with which we can refute the current schedule 1 classification, which is based on an ass-backwards understanding of harms vs benefits.

Next, more and more states need to follow Washington’s and Colorado’s leads, until we’re in majority defiance.

Finally, we’ll drop the spiritual use bomb. Then we’ve got em.
Posted by gypsysattva http://albloggo.blogspot.com/ on November 15, 2012 at 2:24 PM · Report this
35
@Slave2Nannies:

You are totally whiffing on 2 major points:

First, THC is eliminated from your blood MUCH faster than it is from your urine (or hair follicles)- your UA frame of reference is skewed.

Second, you don't seem to understand the concept of probable cause. Under the previous system, the smell of weed smoke in your car also could've (and should've) been probable cause for your arrest for DUI. Just because cops apparently sometimes let you get away with it doesn't mean they had to. Although after 502 they can still arrest you for driving WHILE INTOXICATED (are you really trying to argue that you should be able to do this?) this doesn't mean that they necessarily will. But let's not confuse selective enforcement with probable cause. Walking out of a pot store will not constitute probable cause to pull you over, unless you're observed stumbling around (like walking out of liquor store while sober isn't probable DWI now). You'll have to actually be driving like an idiot (i.e 20mph on I-5) to give them probable cause.

If you do get pulled over for nothing I suggest asking "Is there a problem officer?" and recording his answer.

Cops won't be lurking everywhere to entrap you. One of the major points of 502 is freeing them up to do the more important things they have to do. Don't you realize legalization is a burden lifted off of them as well?

I think you better get on some different shit man. You sound pretty paranoid.
Posted by gypsysattva http://albloggo.blogspot.com/ on November 15, 2012 at 2:22 PM · Report this
34
Demand that we be allowed to ingest cannabis at the state-licensed stores,a-la the coffeshops in the Netherlands,since not allowing it is hypocritical (bars,anybody?)
Posted by 5th Columnist on November 15, 2012 at 2:08 PM · Report this
33
Revoke any business that has a state operating license that refuses to take pot money (such as banks and credit unions).You can always charter a state bank (which is what North Dakota did GENERATIONS ago--and look how low that state's jobless rate is!) that by state law would be required to take grass dough!
Posted by 5th Columnist on November 15, 2012 at 2:06 PM · Report this
32
If the feds show up here and Colorado,then make a citizens' arrest for violating the Constitution and WA state law!
Posted by 5th Columnist on November 15, 2012 at 2:04 PM · Report this
31
Cannabis is safe unless proven otherwise (and the feds have never done that!)It is an interspecies version of incarcerating an innocent person.Prove it is a danger or set it free,you sociopaths!
Posted by 5th Columnist on November 15, 2012 at 2:03 PM · Report this
30
Is not patenting natural forms of life illegal?Then why did the feds patent cannabis? (Pat.# 6630507)And how come the Man cherry picks which substances to ban?Cannabis can't kill you,but daffodils and dandelions can!You can even overdose on water!This lack of consistency implies Madness;the feds are not fit to hold public office,nor be out in the open;they are a Human-Security risk!Dereliction of duty,anybody?
Posted by 5th Columnist on November 15, 2012 at 2:01 PM · Report this
29
Seems to me any business that legally operates in our state will have to follow this new legal matrix such as NOT firing anybody who has cannabinoids in their own damn body!To do that would be violating state laws come 06-12-12.(And the feds are hypocrites legally,the UCSA of 1970 is null and void as it violates both the Tenth Amendment and personal-property-rights laws).Boycott and sue any employer who violates the soon-to-be new state legal code.
Posted by 5th Columnist on November 15, 2012 at 1:58 PM · Report this
Bonefish 28
So far, we have:

1) Dominic Holden isn't a big enough pot smoker,

2) Someone temporarily caved to "concerns" from the medical marijuana community, and

3) I personally disagree with the results that these scientific studies measured and came up with objectively, because nuh-uh!

Strangely, I don't see how any of this serves as evidence that THC maintains levels above 5ng/mL a day after smoking.

Slave2Nannies, are you being disingenuous, or do you simply not know what the word "evidence" means?
Posted by Bonefish http://5bmisc.blogspot.com/ on November 15, 2012 at 1:01 PM · Report this
27
@23 That's a study?
Posted by Rhizome on November 15, 2012 at 12:50 PM · Report this
26
What about hemp? Will farmers once again be able to grow it?
Posted by Willis on November 15, 2012 at 12:26 PM · Report this
Sir Vic 25
Accusing Dominic Holden of not smoking pot is like accusing Dan Savage of not smoking pole.
You cannot be taken seriously after making such a statement.
Posted by Sir Vic on November 15, 2012 at 12:22 PM · Report this
Dominic Holden 24
@23) Go on, show me even "one peer-reviewed study shows even the heaviest pot user above that level the next day."
Posted by Dominic Holden on November 15, 2012 at 12:18 PM · Report this
23
"Last week, we spoke to Representative Claire Levy, sponsor of a bill to set THC driving limits. She had originally set the standard at 5 nanograms per milliliter of blood; then, after listening to the concerns of medical marijuana community members, she backed an amendment changing the number to 8 nanograms. After the amendment failed, she said she was uncertain if she would vote for the bill with the original number -- but in the end, she wound up doing so."

Need more bro? I'm happy to oblige and do your work for you. It's really not that hard.
Posted by Slave2Nannies on November 15, 2012 at 12:06 PM · Report this
Dominic Holden 22
@21) Which study are you referring to? Come on--back up your claim. And yeah, I sometimes smoke pot.
Posted by Dominic Holden on November 15, 2012 at 11:52 AM · Report this
21
google "marijuana dui studies"

Note the results. I can read them. You can read them. Other people can read them. Yet here you are still trying to force your opinion through as fact when anyone can see that at the very least there is a very strong argument against what you are claiming to be irrefutable.

p.s. you didn't answer if you smoke pot now Dom
Posted by Slave2Nannies on November 15, 2012 at 11:40 AM · Report this
20
Dom you don't smoke pot and are pretty much a politician. Why should we believe you more than anyone else? Why don't you post your white papers supporting your side since you made the statement first.
Posted by Slave2Nannies on November 15, 2012 at 11:11 AM · Report this
19
You should start explaining to everyone why you support laws that get them in A LOT more trouble than before 502 was passed.

Example A: In the past if you got pulled over and it smelled like marijuana you got searched and got a ticket - if that. And now? Now it's probable cause to take you down for a blood test and you can be arrested for DUI (under the INFLUENCE) even when you aren't under the influence due to the way THC lingers. This has already been acknowledged by all sides. Even the Feds know it's bullshit. This is why ALL states don't already have this law on the books - because it is not based on science. Because all the studies say no it doesn't work like that with anything except alcohol.

Colorado for instance laughed at such a ridiculous law. Private citizens there took it upon themselves to show just how stupid it was. Did you happen to read those results? It's a rhetorical question because obviously you did not. Before you start addressing the public as some kind of guru maybe you should brush up on the facts.

I take it since you are such a fan boy of this prop that you support this new very harsh punishment fully even though the main proponents admit it's flawed?

"even Alison Holcomb of NAW admitted, in a Hempfest 502 debate, that "it could be fixed after 502 passes."

Last time I checked 18-20 year olds can vote and probably didn't realize the Stranger just repeats what law enforcement tells them to say.

Posted by Slave2Nannies on November 15, 2012 at 11:06 AM · Report this
Dominic Holden 18
@ 17) You say I'm "spreading misinformation" when I write that "Not one peer-reviewed study shows even the heaviest pot user above that level the next day." But I've looked and haven't found one. I've interviewed the world's leading scientists on this issue. And I'd be happy to report on this elusive study that you're referring to--if it exists.
Posted by Dominic Holden on November 15, 2012 at 11:03 AM · Report this
17
"Not one peer-reviewed study shows even the heaviest pot user above that level the next day"

False. Stop spreading misinformation. Why do you ignore the real results of said studies? Why do you support "per se" draconian laws that are clearly based on no science and clearly established to Punish marijuana smokers in much much harsher ways than before I-502 was approved? Do you even smoke marijuana, because in the past I remember you did not.

"Officers would still require probable cause to stop someone"

Wow. Just wow. Have you EVER yourself been busted?? Reality is this: Hmmmm hey that guy looks like he smokes pot let's pull him over and there is a really really good chance he'll test above 5ng because that is an arbitrary amount that in fact does Not go away anywhere nearly that quick. Ask anyone who has ever had a UA how that theory has worked out for them.

I'd be careful from now on when you leave your dispensary of choice people. Just like at bars - the cops will now hang out a little down the road and watch you leave. Seeing you leave a place where marijuana is sold is all the probable cause they need to do whatever they want.
Posted by Slave2Nannies on November 15, 2012 at 10:29 AM · Report this
16
"Not one peer-reviewed study shows even the heaviest pot user above that level the next day"

False. Stop spreading misinformation. Why do you ignore the real results of said studies? Do you even smoke marijuana, because in the past I remember you did not.

"Officers would still require probable cause to stop someone"

Yeah as in hey that guy looks like he smokes pot let's pull him over and there is a really really good chance he'll test above 5ng because that is an arbitrary amount that in fact does Not go away anywhere nearly as quickly as you state. Thank to this law passed by some dip shit lawyer and support by a ex feds I can no longer ever drive without fear of a DUI.
Posted by Slave2Nannies on November 15, 2012 at 10:17 AM · Report this
15
cocaine and malt liquor. bwuuuhhh huhh huhhh huhhhh.
Posted by meemeemeemee on November 15, 2012 at 3:46 AM · Report this
Bauhaus I 14
Think of all that money staying in Washington State (or environs) now and not going to the mob or to ruthless foreign cartels. One of the several reasons why I didn't go near the stuff for years (since the very early 90s, really) was because I didn't know who I was supporting.

Good on ya, Washington. Let's hope that all goes well (and why won't it - it's been readily available in Vancouver for years and there's still a Canada). The nation will be looking at you and this experiment to see how well it works. It'll be like the lotto, I'm thinking, and will ultimately catch on almost everywhere.
Posted by Bauhaus I on November 14, 2012 at 10:59 PM · Report this
mtnlion 13
As it stands, an employer can decide not to hire you for any reason whatsoever, unless the reason has to do with you being a member of a protected class (race/ethnicity, age, sexual orientation, religion, gender). Likewise, they can fire you for any reason and you are allowed to quit for any reason.

My employers require that I look professional on the job. So I no longer dye my hair bright red or wear my labret piercing. It's that, or get a job somewhere far less satisfying and that didn't pay me as well. If you want a job somewhere and they don't allow the use of THC, it's pretty simple. Sorry, but that's how it is, for better or worse.
Posted by mtnlion http://radicalish.wordpress.com on November 14, 2012 at 6:50 PM · Report this
ben@hemp.net 12
A good source for intelligent, thoughtful analysis on cannabis is my new project: Center for Legal Cannabis. Our main product is a map of federally-defined school zones, the zones cited by the feds when they sent cease and desist letters to approximately 30 medical cannabis access points. I expect zoning to be a future battlefield.

I've been working to free cannabis for 17 years, and I can hardly fucking believe we legalized pot in Washington and Colorado. This is the largest gain I have ever witnessed for proponents of rational drug policy. Future uncertainties abound, to be sure, but I try to not let fear of change and fear of the unknown cripple me, so I'm jumping on the train and moving forward, leaving my immobilizing fear and baggage behind on the platform.
Posted by ben@hemp.net on November 14, 2012 at 4:54 PM · Report this
Sir Vic 11
It's the WSLCB's involvement that has me uneasy. This is the same cabal that kept booze behind the counter for 75 years in order to keep a small group of connected companies wealthy. Their natural constituents are the beer/wine/liquor distributors, who have a vested interest in blocking marijuana use.
Will the WSLCB suddenly turn their back on their sugar daddies, or block implementation of 502 for years with bullshit "studies"? If the three WSLCB directors voted against 502 (which they were certainly paid to do), how can they possibly be fair in implementing it?
Posted by Sir Vic on November 14, 2012 at 3:59 PM · Report this
10
Has anyone looked into what Corporate America's take on our new law is? In terms of drug testing. I know many companies will have people take a piss test to get the position, but never test again without cause. Could there be more companies testing randomly?
Posted by seabaker on November 14, 2012 at 2:33 PM · Report this
9
I'm guessing a boatload (bongload) of people aren't aware you can't smoke weed in public and the ticket is $50.

I'm guessing that and no growing your own will be one of the biggest items necessary for the education campaign.

Dom, I assume the various indoor smoking provisions passed to prohibit tobacco smoke apply to marijuana, too?
Posted by David Miller on November 14, 2012 at 12:55 PM · Report this
8
I picture a room with a lot of tables. Legally licensed growers can grab a table and show their wares to adults who may purchase them. The state takes their share at the door (50% all at once instead of 25% + 25%).

Pretty simple.
Posted by michaeldare on November 14, 2012 at 12:46 PM · Report this
7
@5333. That depends entirely on the employer. As a Metro driver, I can assure you that this law will not apply to us. Any CDL operator (bus, Semi, Crane) has to take FEDERALLY mandated random and at-hire testing. If we buy a bottle of wine on the way home from work- in uniform- we can be terminated. Metro operators do have some union protection. 587 ATU negotiated detection levels (they are much much lower then new DUI threshold.) Those levels indicate vicinity levels. In other words, you can light a joint and smoke it in front of your buddy whom drives for Metro, but do not ask him if he wants a hit. Maybe those drivers with a serious stick up their asses would chill out if they could smoke? But more importantly, do you want someone negotiating the rush hour streets of downtown with 35 tons of mass and countless distractions on and off the bus high? Not me.
Posted by pussnboots on November 14, 2012 at 12:36 PM · Report this
auntie jim 6
I "held my nose" and voted for this stinking initiative, I think we would have had a much better outcome if we simply erased words like "marijuana" and "cannabis" from all the existing anti drug laws. We'll see how it turns out but I hope this is a good trend and legalization spreads across the country. I gathered signatures for the BLOSSOM initiative in 1971 which would have prohibited commercial advertising for marijuana, which seems quaint now, and otherwise legalized it completely with no regulations at all.
Posted by auntie jim http://www.gaysnohomish.org on November 14, 2012 at 12:23 PM · Report this
Will in Seattle 5
Good point @1.

Good luck finding a jury that will convict someone for a federal arrest for possession in this state, however. Unless you're driving. I got no prob locking up drivers high on pills, pot, or booze.
Posted by Will in Seattle http://www.facebook.com/WillSeattle on November 14, 2012 at 12:13 PM · Report this
4
@3: "at what point will employers stop screening for it in pre-employment testing?"

What on earth does this have to do with 502? When some other initiative makes it illegal to do so?
Posted by that's not going to happen immediately on November 14, 2012 at 12:11 PM · Report this
3
at what point will employers stop screening for it in pre-employment testing?
Posted by me5333 on November 14, 2012 at 12:01 PM · Report this
2
Is it a crime to _buy_ or only to sell/deliver?
Posted by mokatop on November 14, 2012 at 10:16 AM · Report this
1
Thanks, Dominic. But a warning to folks out there: gifting or trading medical weed is still considered "delivery" under the statute. It is a crime and it doesn't matter whether there's cash involved.

So be discreet, and know that under the state law you are not required to tell a cop or anyone else where you got the ounce of bud you legally possess.
Posted by Mr. Happy Sunshine on November 14, 2012 at 9:57 AM · Report this

Add a comment