Hate to be Mr. Buzzkill here, but growing, possessing and distributing pot is still illegal under Federal law, and until that changes, states can pass legalization until they're blue in the face, but it will be for naught...

How does that work, @1, if the pot in question never crosses state lines? This is clearly going to *immediately* go to the courts, if it passes, in any case.

It doesn't have to cross state lines for the feds to get involved. Right now, Obama has told them to back off to some degree, but there's no telling how aggressive a Republican president could get. Can you imagine what Perry would do?

What changes if you challenge nothing?

@4, the more sensible approach would be to get one or more members of our (or some other state's) Congressional delegation to introduce a bill to legalize the cultivation, sale, distribution and possession of marijuana. And give the states the authority to tax and regulate it, as with alcohol and tobacco.

You obviously never watched Schoolhouse Rock...

Did someone just accuse Baconcat of not knowing how legislation gets passed? lololololololololol

Unfortunately this initiative would NOT bring any sort of protection and isn't in any legal terms "legalization". This initiative simply creates a legal exception for those possessing an ounce or less and only allows the cultivation of cannabis for STATE registered growers. This might even be considered a small step forward, but it's actually quite dangerous as it setups a terrible per se DUI limit for those 21 and older. If someone has a THC blood level of 5 ng/mL or above they will be considered guilty of a DUI if tested, despite this having NOTHING to do with impairment, as a patient or regular smoker could stopping smoking for 12+ hours and still fail a DUI test. To think someone is impaired 12 hours after smoking is insane. This will cause a huge amount of innocent arrests and DUIs, and in most cases getting a DUI is worse on a person's record than getting caught with an ounce or less of cannabis,

One of the worst parts of I-502 is that it sets up, for patients under 21, a ZERO tolerance driving limit, meaning a patient could stop smoking for several days and still fail a DUI test (completely ignoring the fact that the legal age for medical cannabis in this state is 18) . Both this and the adult limit have no basis in science, and in fact a commission designed specifically to look at this issue, appointed by the Colorado Legislature, decided to NOT recommend a similar DUI limit as there was no scientific consensus for such: http://blogs.westword.com/latestword/201….

Individuals should seriously look twice before putting their support behind New Approach Washington and Initiative 502.

Unfortunately this initiative would NOT bring any sort of protection and isn't in any legal terms "legalization". This initiative simply creates a legal exception for those possessing an ounce or less and only allows the cultivation of cannabis for STATE registered growers. This might even be considered a small step forward, but it's actually quite dangerous as it setups a terrible per se DUI limit for those 21 and older. If someone has a THC blood level of 5 ng/mL or above they will be considered guilty of a DUI if tested, despite this having NOTHING to do with impairment, as a patient or regular smoker could stopping smoking for 12+ hours and still fail a DUI test. To think someone is impaired 12 hours after smoking is insane. This will cause a huge amount of innocent arrests and DUIs, and in most cases getting a DUI is worse on a person's record than getting caught with an ounce or less of cannabis,

One of the worst parts of I-502 is that it sets up, for patients under 21, a ZERO tolerance driving limit, meaning a patient could stop smoking for several days and still fail a DUI test (completely ignoring the fact that the legal age for medical cannabis in this state is 18) . Both this and the adult limit have no basis in science, and in fact a commission designed specifically to look at this issue, appointed by the Colorado Legislature, decided to NOT recommend a similar DUI limit as there was no scientific consensus for such: http://blogs.westword.com/latestword/201….

Individuals should seriously look twice before putting their support behind New Approach Washington and Initiative 502.

Is this the first time any state party has ever endorsed a pot initiative?

I don't like pot, been there tried it, but I don't get why all the fuss about it. Make it legal across the country, no sense in wasting resources over something that's not really worse than alcohol anyway.

Hey NaFun, in 2010 the Washington State Democrats endorsed (with a vote of 314 to 185) I-1068 which would have fully repealed cannabis prohibition for adults 18 and older (sponsored by Sensible Washington which is planning to run again in 2012: https://sensiblewashington.org/blog/).

http://elections.firedoglake.com/2010/06…

Oh, as for taxing it, just tax it like food, when you buy it it gets taxed, when you make it yourself it doesn't ... it's too easy to grow to tax it all.

too bad we need 10x that amount in revenue to avoid any further budget cuts.

Wow! Big whoop-de-do. The Democratic party is only eighty years behind the times. Whereas the Republican party is so far back in time, they haven't evolved a frontal lobe.

Unfortunately Kitten it doesn't work like that with cannabis. Since cannabis is a federally illegal substance it makes this initiative entirely federally pre-emptable - as it goes directly against the Federal Controlled Substances Act. This means that no initiative or bill can force the state to accept taxes from a substance that's so illegal federally, such as I-502 does, which means that the feds will be able to quickly win a court challenge against it, rendering it, and the distribution system moot. The only way to regulate it is to first remove the criminal penalties associated with adult cannabis offenses, which I-502 doesn't do, as once again it only creates a legal exception for those possessing an ounce or less.

After pre-emption, all that you're left with from 502 is this 1 ounce "decrim" and an awful DUI limit.

Nice to see Sensible Washington suddenly turn territorial. That's constructive.

sensible washington would rather divide the legalization community and let bickering destroy their efforts then get behind a well funded and planned group with an actual shot at the ballot.

This has nothing to do with Sensible Washington (I only mentioned it because it was asked if this was the first time a state endorsed a cannabis initiative), it has to do with a terrible initiative that would cause far more harm than good. If I-502 is accepted as "legalization", despite that legally making no sense, than it will set the reform movement back years.

The money, arrests and prosecution that will be brought from the DUI limit (regardless of the lies NAW is spreading about it) won't make up the benefits of not arresting individuals for an ounce or less. This adds a new branch of prohibition in this state an does nothing to solve the real problems that cannabis prohibition brings.

Plus, what's the point of putting so much time and money into an initiative that is, without a doubt, federally pre-emptable? Just to make a point? Bringing actual reform seems more important.

I also want to add that to the claim that Sensible Washington is splitting the community, which is a little misguided. Sensible Washington has been around for a year and a half longer than New Approach, and in fact in 2010 (the same year Washington State Democrats backed us) the Students Employers International Union paid $10,000 to have our signatures verified and were considering paying us on the ballot until Allison Holcomb (New Approach Washington's Campaign Director) and Washington's ACLU (which she has the head of) came out against us, so the union backed off. That seems to me like splitting the community, especially because their one problem with our initiative was that we didn't setup specific regulations, which makes absolutely no sense because any specific regulation that forces the state to accept taxes from cannabis is automatically pre-emptable.

Sensible Washington stands, and will stand for exactly what it has stood for, and they would be remaining neutral if it wasn't for the DUI limit, which is being fought hard against by MANY more groups than just SW.

@16 That was kind of implied with my point. Just stop the prosecuting of something so mild. I don't know the exact statistics, but I bet it'd save more money if they decriminalized it .... treated it like alcohol and such.

Any legislation needs to take into account the black market that will strengthen with taxation. Any time a product is taxed, the market surges. The tobacco black market costs the states (because their tobacco settlement payments are tied to tobacco profits) and the federal government tens of millions of dollars each year in enforcement alone. The last person caught in NY estimated a value of $50 million loss to NY. The Mexican cartels would flourish. The increase in the need for cartel enforcement would increase dramatically and immediately. Where are those resources coming from? So far the only entity prepared to initiate regulation, taxation, and prepared for supply is...Big Tobacco. They have had their marijuana plan ready to implement since the early 1970's. Do you really want the true profits to go to Philip Morris and R.J. Reynolds?