@98: "Now, to be honest, I'm not SURE that I'm even AGAINST I-502-- I'm just researching and considering and concerned by what I've found in the medical journals and in my conversations with patients/law enforcement-- I have til November to make up my mind."

I don't think anyone would argue with this position. There's plenty of reason for concern, and I understand why people dissent. I think many supporters just don't find the reasons compelling, or the tradeoffs too severe in such a way that they can not be remedied in the near future.

#98: well said!

#101: undead, I think that's one of the bigger disagreements that separates a lot of our opinions. If it was easily altered, this may be a different issue, but in reality, 1) our legislature legally can't alter it for two years, 2) DUI and DUID penalties are never reduced, and 3) a recent attempt to protect JUST patients from the per se limit (just like even Arizona has for their per se law!!) didn't even make it out of committee.

When I-502 qualified for the ballot, I was inclined to vote against it due to the DUI stuff. However, after reading the study that Dom posted the other week and then wading through this post - I am definitely going to vote for 502. The arguments against 502 conflate a bunch of secondary/tertiary scenarios into some form of disaster, and really amount to no substance.

MicheleJohn - you claim a legal education, but also insinuate that passage of 502 will remove your son's ability to drive. Not true. If arrested for DUI, any under 21 patient would simply need to refuse a blood test. The per se standard would then be moot.

action that's completely not true, and denying the test could land him a number of legal penalties

also it's not a tertiary scenario to say that it voids our 6th amendment right to a fair trial...once again, to give up something so valuable seems outlandish.

@103 - Please be clear that you are trying to protect those patients and users who get pulled over for driving recklessly, fail a subsequent field sobriety test, and test over 5ng/ml of active THC in their blood over an hour after that. They've already failed the field sobriety test and indicated that they are, indeed, impaired. You want to give those folks a pass.

By the way, if you move the goalposts and declare that the field sobriety test isn't reliable either then you lose.

nafun the field sobriety test is pointless when they have a per se policy. law enforcement will know this, and any sign that you're a cannabis consumer (maybe you smell like it from hours ago or have a pro-cannabis flier in your car) they can test you knowing that they can easily meet quotas as most cannabis consumers will fail the test. Also imagine if under 502 our state does roadside blood tests....every consumer in the state will be absolutely screwed and its likely that law enforcement could push for it knowing what it would mean in combination with a no-rebuttable presumption per se policy (and dont say it wont happen: http://ohmygov.com/blogs/general_news/ar…).

You lost.

Solution: Hire LEOs who can smell impairment.

@#95. Regardless of my personal opinion on a 5ng limit, which echo's NORML's, or my personal experience with a conviction of a green dui last year without a 5ng limit.

The premise of my statement above, the axiom that an individual’s "rights outweigh privilege", is a categorical imperative, I believe, regardless of the variables.

The right to a fair trial is not dependent on whether or not you are guilty. But, today in Washington, if you are guilty of a green dui, with or without a per se THC limit, then a fair trial will convict you - and, you will still maintain the privilege to drive.

Both sides of this argument are seemingly based on fear. Fear of stoned drivers gives us a 5ng limit. And fear of a dui gives patients arguments against 502.

I believe that both fears are unfounded by any objective measure.

Vote on.

-Kevin Oliver, Executive Director, Washington NORML

"arrests will not drop, but rather shift to the more onerous charges of DUI (most arrests occur at traffic stops) and trafficking (passing a joint remains illegal)."

You are high. No cop is going to haul in people for a blood test for no reason at all. No fan of DUI hysteria here but this whole controversy is completely bogus. Best chance to roll back the evil drug war, however feebly, in years, and you fools are going to shoot yourselves in the foot.

I am totally not in favor of stoned drivers, but I am also really against people being punished for driving just for having smoked some time during the week. I don't think it's cool to mess with patients for smoking or eating or whatever, and punishing them for driving sober isn't ok.

And can anybody explain what this stuff about passing a joint still being illegal under I-502? Is that true? If so, how can they call it legalization, and why would they make it still trafficking or distribution or whatever? Like, what's the point in that?

I'm not sure, but with all this questionable stuff, I think I probably won't support this. I need to look into it further, but really this seems a little off and shady and I don't like the thought of not being able to be a patient and be able to drive even if you medicated a while ago, or days or whatever. That doesn't seem ok...

Hey, Kevin @112) Can you please email me with a good number to reach you at this email address.

@114: "what this stuff about passing a joint still being illegal under I-502?"

Why don't you read it and tell us instead of confusing rumors for fact?

to undead ayn, what are you calling rumors? It's a fact that under i502 passing a joint (as well as exchanging ounces) would be illegal.

@117: "The implication here is that all too often, the officer's assessments are subjective because of the wide variances on the normal responses, so he can pretty much say there were issues with any field sobriety tests if he wants"

What do you, as a professional, suggest we implement instead of field tests and hard per se limits?

@118 - yup. sure would be. No argument there. Your point?

I've been on the fence about I-502 for a long time. I know and respect supporters and detractors, including multiple people who participated in the discussion in these comments and the primary author of the initiative. I had a good discussion with Dominic about it earlier this week, and he really made me consider my reservations about the initiative. After that and the discussion I've seen here, I think I'm getting off the fence. The pro-502 arguments are consistently more convincing to me than the anti-502 arguments are. Let's get this passed and very carefully monitor how law enforcement agencies react.

Did I read it right when someone wrote of their concern for the rights of grandmas with glaucoma being to drive to get their weed?

Phil @121: hooray!! That makes me very happy!

nafun my point is that its legally stupid to legalize possession of somnething that it's illegal to hand to your friend that's right next to you. No one is going to understand this and many individuals will be prosecuted for not understand that "legalization" under 502 means no passing a pipe, no planting a plant, no driving, etc.

this is quite the interesting debate and i love that its about how to legalize and not if. that said tho this is not something i can support. im a big time consitutuionalist and ignoring our sixth amendment is absolutely a no no, no matter what the issue of the initiative is.

I promise that if I-502 is enacted as law, I will appear in court to bear witness to the trial of the first adult who is prosecuted for passing a pipe packed with cannabis flowers to another adult.

Police will undoubtedly use the threat of prosecution for such to coerce people into pleading guilty to other crimes. How do others think we should deal with that problem? Massive jury nullification campaign?

@125 please explain your understanding of the sixth amendment and how said initiative violates it.

Honestly, if we went about marriage equality the same way, we'd be holding out until we can hold giant gay orgies on a catholic altar and have it televised during prime time. Arguing with you people is like arguing with a bunch of fundamentalist assholes.

http://wasafecannabis.com/misc/why-thc-b…

pfffter the sixth amendment is a good amendment. it declares that as people living in this country we MUST MUST MUST be given a fair trial. i 502s duid is per se and if this article is right about not having rebutting presumption then there will be no fair trial.

also im not sure what you mean by arguing with "you people" this is the first ive heard of 502 but i know right away i cant vote for something like this. its a slippery slope to ignore the constitution

@128 yes, thanks Mimi for posting what you've already written on slog. It wasn't convincing the first time, and most definitely not the second. When the only piece of evidence you cite is a medical dictionary, it is easy to dismiss against peer-reviewed published research of the sort being discussed re the per se limit.

@129 if this is really, truly the first you're hearing of 502 then you really, truly need to rely on far more than is being said in this thread (much of which is flat out incorrect).

From Michelle Alexander:

This is insane! 93% of all the people arrested by the Atlanta Police Department for marijuana possession in 2011 and 2010 were African American. This is NOT because black folks use or sell marijuana more often than whites. Studies indicate the opposite is true. This is discrimination, pure and simple, despite the claim by the Chief of Police that they don't "racially profile." It is time decriminalize marijuana.

As I have said several times: 502 is not about medical marijuana. It is not even really about marijuana and Washington State. It represents the best chance we have ever had of tossing a brick through the window of the prohibitionist paradigm.

If we lose this year (and lose in Colorado), we will not have another realistic chance for at least four years. Splitting hairs for the sake of purity this year indicates a complete lack of understanding of political reality.

Pass 502 and then fix whatever is wrong with it.

What NORML and NAW fail to realize is that most of the activists who are protesting the loudest against I-502 have been some of the hardest workers in the fight against prohibition. They have given their time and money, working tirelessly and often thanklessly to help to educate the public, collect signatures and spread the word that Reefer Madness really isn’t. Many of those people are cannabis patients, others have family or friends who are patients.

Many of us resent the name-calling, the finger-pointing and the accusations of greed and selfishness. Need proof of it? There are plenty of screen shots floating around, just ask. We’ve fought right next to rec users for their rights, thinking that if, instead of fighting for our own arrest protections, we fought for everyone, all would be better off.

And this is what we get in return. You make us the sacrificial lambs now so you can have a little bit of smoke in your pocket. What you don’t take into consideration is that while you lead us to the slaughterhouse, you are on the way there too. No good can come of a law that makes criminals out of the innocent. Ever.

Exchanging one freedom by destroying the rights of another is also very wrong. To do that to a population that can do little to defend itself is morally corrupt. To intentionally incriminate the sick, disabled and dying so others can have a good time legally is the most heinous of crimes itself. To ask the disabled to give up a privilege that provides them with just a fraction of the freedoms of the healthy, so that healthy people can enjoy even more freedoms–what kind of demented hypocrisy is that?

so Russ...how many of them dis-include rebuttable presumption such as 502 does?

"we STILL don't see the kind of "haul every pot smoker in for a blood test" catastrophe the Patients Voting For Prohibition are foretelling."

obviously Russ because most people arent stupid enough to smoke in Utah. but if people think cannabis is legal...why wouldn't they think they can drive 4, 6 or more hours after smoking? It's a totally different scenario and comparisons seems invalid.

it's funny how you say patients siding with the drug czar when youre supporting an initiative that has a duid policy that's supported by...the drug czar (and Obama)!

Also Pennsylvania once again isnt legal, so your comparison is invalid. No one thinks its legal like they'd be duped into thinking if i502 passes.

Once again, even beyond these huge problems the initiative is almost humorously faulty. passing a joint can still nab you with a distribution charge? whoever wrote this needs to go back to law school.

Its also a near lie to say you have an open mind, because you know as well as well all do that with NORMLs endorsement you couldnt come out against it if you wanted to.

As youve quoted before when talking about prohibitionists: “It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on him not understanding it.”

for those questioning the intentions of those against this for the per se limit, look at how hard and listen to the quite-good reasoning behind their fighting against literally the SAME limit that's introduced in 502 over in Colorado http://www.capwiz.com/norml2/issues/aler…

as NORML puts it in the article:

"Last year, lawmakers rejected a similar proposal. This summer, a special legislative work group also failed to endorse such a per se standard.

Senate Bill 117 is inappropriate because THC levels in blood are often inconsistent predictors of behavioral impairment, particularly in daily users (such as many of those in Colorado’s patient community) who may possess residual levels of THC in their blood for periods of time far exceeding any reasonable period of psychomotor impairment."

I don't like not being able to fight this in court. If you're suspicious of me being high while driving and I pass a sobriety test but the officer decides to get my blood tested anyway and I happen to have had the kind of body chemistry that allowed THC to linger for longer in my fat cells I would want to be able to present the facts in open court and let a jury decide if the facts of the case match up to the fines and/or jail time. Taking that away my right to a fair trial isn't worth legalization, I'd much rather keep buying it illegally than submit to more mandatory minimum sentences, I totally draw the line there that's part of the reason we got into this mess. It's still a huge middle finger to the feds, but it's not worth more people automatically losing their freedom based on a blood test known to be inaccurate. Also consumer level devices, like the breathalyzers, that could give you a readout of your thc levels would be a necessity if you could ever let a charge stick. If I can't know how my own body chemistry acts to thc the state has no right throwing me in jail AUTOMATICALLY for driving around with too much in my blood. Come the fuck on this is not alcohol in the least.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ian-daniel…

"Additionally, the group notes that medical marijuana patients develop an increased tolerance to the inebriating effects of the drug, as well as compensating for potential inebriation by slowing down and increasing distances between themselves and other vehicles. In stark contrast, heavy drinkers actually become more sensitive to alcohol's inebriating effects (a reverse tolerance), and experience lowered inhibitions, creating high potential for dangerous driving. Therefore, marijuana impairment and alcohol impairment are very different, and methods of measuring impairment that work for alcohol may not be appropriate when applied to marijuana."

Okay, here EW more studies that verify and correlate my piece on http://wasafecannabis.com/misc/why-thc-b…
for those of you who were unable to understand the earlier definition and explanation that I posted.

@34 -Why is it that Hempfest has taken NO position? If I-502 was everything that NAW claims it is, a Hempfest endorsement should be an open and shut case.

@35 - how do you plan on KNOWING when you are or are not over the legal limit? There is no scientific guideline for measuring impairment from THC, so how will you know when you drop below the arbitrary limit proposed in I-502 and can drive without risking getting a DUI for being unimpaired?

@49 - there are many N=1 studies which show that cannabis users can, in fact, wake up the next morning after a full night's sleep, with levels 2-10 times higher than the "arbitrary, unnecessary and unscientific" DUI limit proposed in I-502. One of these studies was convincing enough that the Colorado Legislature killed a bill last year, which proposed the very same DUI limits contained in I-502.

@ 50 - NORML, not I-502 opponents, are the ones who call the DUI limit in I-502 "arbitrary, UNNECESSARY and unscientific." Why is it unnecessary? Washington State's CURRENT DUI law contains the science-based alternative you seek. The law now is based on proof of IMPAIRMENT (evidence like Field Sobriety Tests, Blood Samples, etc.). I-502 changes the law so that a blood test alone is not just evidence in a DUI case, but is definitive proof that a person is DUI. The REALITY is that absent other evidence, a blood test alone cannot show whether a person is definitively impaired. Science has repeatedly shown that there is not a THC blood level which can be consistently correlated to impairment in all individuals.

No one is required by law to take a field sobriety test. You cannot pass them. Ask your attorney. A blood test refusal is the only refusal that in most, but not necessarily all cases, will result in an automatic license suspension as an administrative function of the Department of Licensing. If that happens, then you pay for a hearing and ultimately get your driving privileges back.

I do not understand the assumption made by angry patients that they are going to lose their license to an automatic DUI. First, you have to get pulled over, which isn't going to happen to you anymore often than it does now. Second, citizens getting arrested for DUI in WA are still driving, so how exactly does this change? I mean, they pay a fee and get a breathalyzer. The courts are not going to put everyone out of work or take away freedoms by taking away drivers licenses.

DUI - whether it is for prescriptions, alcohol, cannabis, or cough syrup - will affect the poor and lower economic classes far more than the medical community, because of the fees involved. And it is not the case that all patients are broke. DUI rarely, if ever, results in the loss of driving privileges if one jumps through the hoops.

I understand the argument against a green DUI, especially when you will already get one if pulled over smelling like weed today. And I agree wholeheartedly, as most pot smokers and pot activists do and as the current evidence supports, that frequent users are less of a risk (than an infrequent recreational user while operating a motor vehicle under the influence of cannabis) to the population at large.

But, the angry tone of patients against 502 is lost on the voters, voters who you need - voters who should/would/could have been educated over the past few years about the realities of cannabis impairment, or lack thereof. But the voters have not been educated by any previous legalization campaigns. And, even though NORML has literature that has been trying to educate the public about the truth of cannabis and driving, that literature wasn't being passed around at signature gathering or volunteering events for other statewide initiatives. Why not? It was available from NORML, it was offered from NORML. No one wanted it. And, the voters don't know about it. Imagine if 200,000 people would have been offered that information over each of the last two years – could that have affected the polling which resulted in 502?

Naw...it's all NORMLs fault? Yeah, whatever.

And, with grassroots activists chanting that, "alcohol is safer than marijuana", we wonder why then, after wearing that t-shirt for so many years, why marijuana is finally being juxtaposed to and treated like alcohol - as an intoxicant. Hmm...I wonder.

Now let’s say, hypothetically, that a group of angry people went to a dry alcohol county in the State of Washington and said they wanted the right to drink as much as they wanted to and then drive with no repercussions to their driving record, it would freak everyone out - especially moms and conservatives!

The same is true of the angry rants against a green DUI threshold; while you can get other patients passionately (angrily) supporting your premise that this is not a sane law, you will never convince the voters that you are trying to reach with your current soapbox. And to all of you trolling angry posters - this is a public service message to you, a constructive criticism. Take it to heart and think about the demographic you are trying to reach - it is not the choir to which you are currently singing.

You need to lower the pitch and write a hit “pop song” if you want to sing to the majority who are deaf to your message in their current state of cannabis impairment awareness.

Vote On.

you simply cannot force a state to accept taxes from a federally illegal substance and expect it to stand ground in a court battle

Actually, I thought this WAS the entire point - the federal ban is illegal as it oversteps separation-of-powers limits. Pass a legalization bill in a state (if regulation isn't legalization, then neither alcohol nor tobacco are legal), and sue the federal government on constitutional grounds if they go after intrastate commerce.

As for the DUIs... well, driving is not a right, it's a privilege requiring compliance with certain regulations, some arbitrary. If you smoke pot regularly and are worried about being pulled over in the first place (shouldn't really be an issue if you're not a shitty driver to begin with, though I realized that "shouldn't" isn't the same thing as "won't"), then don't fucking drive. I think all DUIs are stupid - people should be pulled over and have their licenses suspended for breaking traffic laws, irrespective of the reason (intoxication, poor driving skills while sober, driving while distracted for whatever reason - cell phone or anything else).

ALL DUI laws are arbitrary - blood alcohol levels may correlate to impairment, but because drivers are starting at different points of ability, alertness, reaction times, etc., equal impairment does not mean equal driving ability. If I'm twice as careful a driver as you are while sober, a 50% impairment of my driving ability puts us on equal standing in terms of endangering others on the road, irrespective of the difference in our intoxication/impairments. Arguing that prohibition should continue because you want to be able to smoke pot AND drive is fucking stupid, especially when doing so is already illegal under the prohibition laws.

@146: "ALL DUI laws are arbitrary"

Right, I want better legal/social/medically accurate solutions. Not throwing hands into the air or weak shrugs. If you're trying to "shake up the system", fucking do so. Don't claim that marijuana should remain outside the "system" as if mainstream America is going to bite.

@145 - Washington NORML - Patients and others have been lead to believe they stand to lose their driving privileges due to an automatic DUI because that is the very idea that YOUR ORGANIZATION has promoted for years!

Tell us why NORML is FIGHTING the very same DUI language in COLORADO that it is DEFENDING in WASHINGTON? Why does NORML encourage per se DUI in Washington, but the exact same proposal is indefenisble in Colorado?

You say we were not passing out NORML's literature on cannabis and driving. WHERE WERE YOU? We have been passing out NORML's literature on this topic from the moment that we learned per se DUIC had a chance of taking foothold in our state.

You say "the courts are not going to put everyone out of work or take away freedoms by taking away drivers licenses." How long did YOU have to give up your license when getting arrested and charged for driving after admittedly smoking hash? Yet NORML wants to insinuate that WE are the ones who want to drive impaired?

As for jumping through hoops, per se DUI eliminates all of those hoops, including rebuttable presumption. You will not have the luxury of taking a plea bargain when police and prosecutors have an open and shut case because you exceeded the "arbitrary, unnecessary and unscientific" per se DUI limit. You will not be getting your license back when that DUI charge sticks because the contents of your blood are the ONLY EVIDENCE NEEDED TO CONVICT YOU.

Lastly, may we remind NAW, NORML and others that patients are not the ones who NEED the votes to win. I-502 needs the votes. Alienating patients, who are your base supporters, is not the way to win votes or future donations. See this enlightening article from Steve Elliott: http://www.tokeofthetown.com/2012/01/att…

P.S. The phrase "alcohol is safer than marijuana" is the title of a book by NORML'S DEPUTY DIRECTOR. If you have issues with that slogan, perhaps you should discuss it with Paul Armentano.

The DUI-Cannabis provisions under I-502 apply in only one circumstance: impaired driving. Probable cause based on impairment to be stopped, followed by reasonable observations of impairment, and specifically impairment caused by drugs, will be required prior to a blood draw.

If, and only if, a driver is stopped with probable cause for suspected impaired driving, and there are reasonable grounds for believing that a driver is impaired, and reasonable grounds to believe the impairment is caused by marijuana or a drug other than alcohol, the officer may arrest and a blood test may be required. Blood tests can only be done when there is sufficient evidence that impairment is caused by a substance other than alcohol.

A good lawyer will make sure this is the way it goes down. If your driving shows signs of impairment and you show evidence of impairment, then if it is caused by alcohol, prescription drugs, illegal drugs or cannabis is immaterial.

Impaired driving, like marijuana prohibition, kills.

150 - WRONG, NotSpicoli.

People get pulled over for all sorts of ridiculous reasons. Everything from a license plate light being out to "suspicions" that the car/driver might have been involved in a crime.

Due to Washington State's implied consent law, once an officer pulls you over, all they have to do is ask for a blood sample. Under I-502, if you refuse that officer's request, you will AUTOMATICALLY lose your license for 90 days. If you submit and your blood contents exceed I-502's "arbitrary, unnecessary and unscientific" limits for THC, you will be guilty of DUI even if you are not impaired.

"Under I-502, if you refuse that officer's request, you will AUTOMATICALLY lose your license for 90 days."

And not under I-502.

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?…

"The officer shall warn the driver, in substantially the following language, that:

(a) If the driver refuses to take the test, the driver's license, permit, or privilege to drive will be revoked or denied for at least one year;"

PAI502, if you want to be taken seriously, you ought to stick to focusing on what would change rather than restating the existing law.

What would change, Undead Ayn Rand, is your ability to introduce evidence that you were not impaired in the least. That is because IMPAIRMENT is no longer an issue once I-502 passes. At that point, the contents of your blood ALONE will be the sole factor used to determine impairment. As researchers, NORML and our organization have continually pointed out, THERE IS NO THC BLOOD LEVEL THAT CAN BE CONSISTENTLY CORRELATED WITH IMPAIRMENT.

http://norml.org/library/item/you-are-go…
As the above review states, along with MANY other pieces of literature - a blood level alone is NOT sufficient proof of impairment, absent other evidence.

"That is because IMPAIRMENT is no longer an issue once I-502 passes."

Again, how is this handled now?

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?…

"RCW 46.61.502
Driving under the influence.

(1) A person is guilty of driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or any drug if the person drives a vehicle within this state:

(a) And the person has, within two hours after driving, an alcohol concentration of 0.08 or higher as shown by analysis of the person's breath or blood made under RCW 46.61.506; or

(b) While the person is under the influence of or affected by intoxicating liquor or any drug; or

(c) While the person is under the combined influence of or affected by intoxicating liquor and any drug."

From what I see, the only difference here is that I-502 PROTECTS you below that cutoff point.

Kevin…you know that this isn't about driving impaired, it's about unconstitutional (where’s our fair trial?) and unethical laws being unacceptable (and you KNOW they're unethical as NORML has been saying so for YEARS).

Also, it’s quite a shame to hear your opinion has changed so much since you met with us at Sensible Washington’s Steering Committee meeting a couple weeks ago when your tone about this whole situation was quite different...

As many might recall, I advocated in many forums and with legislators for a medical accommodation for the DUI-C provision. NOT because of the the inadequacy of I-502 by inclusion of a DUI-C provision, but rather to make explicit the expectations on the police and thereby calm the hysteria of the vocal opposition coming from some members of the medical cannabis community.

In fact, attempts to "explicitly protect medical marijuana rights" involved adding a provision to the proposed med cannabis legislation (SB 6265) which failed to make it out of committee: "A DUI conviction under RCW 46.61.502 or 46.61.504 or equivalent local ordinances must be based on actual impairment, as is the case in current law." This sentence was removed.

Likewise, a stand alone measure addressing DUI-C (HB 2454) went nowhere.

It was raised at the hearings that HB 2454 was unnecessary as it is simply a restatement of current law. It bears repeating: A restatement of current law.

"The Washington State Safe Cannabis Act," a proposed initiative being pushed by I-502 medical cannabis opponents, states, "However, a qualifying patient may not be found in violation of chapter 46.61.502 RCW or chapter 46.61.504 RCW, or an equivalent local ordinance, based solely on the presence, or presence in a certain concentration, of components or metabolites of cannabis, without other evidence that the qualifying patient was actually impaired." Again, this is a restatement of current law.

I agree with the testimony before the legislature that "Such concerns are overblown, said Dr. Kim Thorburn, Spokane County's former top public health official and one of the sponsor's of I-502. "In order to be stopped for impaired driving you have to show impairment," she said. "This is not a concern for medical marijuana users and has been kind of a red herring that has been raised."

@156: "it's about unconstitutional (where’s our fair trial?) and unethical laws being unacceptable (and you KNOW they're unethical as NORML has been saying so for YEARS)."

Then fucking go after them directly, not in this context. I-502 works along with the system in place.

Work to change the system in place. Put your lobbying towards lobbying for studies that would create more accurate ways to determine impairment in the field and in the lab..

#146: Unfortunately that's not what this is about with I-502. Take a look at the federal CSA and take a look at 502 and you'll see that it will NOT stand a challenge in court. However, if like Missouri (Show-Me Cannabis Regulations) and California's End Cannabis Prohibition Act of 2012 they would of kept the EXACT same initiative but removed it from the state's controlled substances list - THAT would of stood up to a federal challenge because the feds can't reinstate state criminal sanctions...this would of brought real, lasting reform (and they still could of had the distribution system in the initiative, etc.).

Also: not true undead. Under the cutoff your defense doesn't change. Above the cutoff...you lose your right to a fair trial.

And sorry undead, I just can't not work to make sure this never becomes law (for the same reason so many people have fought again per se laws for decades), because changing it after it passes is practically an impossibility.

"changing it after it passes is practically an impossibility."

If the science is there, changing all testing mechanisms and procedure will be a possibilty.

undead...please show me the last time any "drugged" driving penalties were decreased.

here's NORML fighting hard to stop the same EXACT 5 ng/ml limit for cannabis in Colorado: http://www.capwiz.com/norml2/issues/aler…

@155 - the RCW's that you cite will be CHANGED immensely by I-502.
Here is a simple breakdown for you:
WHAT THE LAW SAYS NOW:
(1) A person is guilty of driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or any drug if the person drives a vehicle in this state:
a) And the person has, within two hours after driving, an alcohol concentration of 0.08 or higher as shown by analysis of the person’s breath or blood made under RCW 46.61.506; or
b) While the person is under the influence of or affected by intoxicating liquor or any drug; or
c) While the person is under the combined influence of or affected by intoxicating liquor and any drug.

HOW I-502 WILL CHANGE THE LAW
(1) A person is guilty of driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or any drug if the person drives a vehicle within this state:
(a) And the person has, within two hours after driving, an alcohol concentration of 0.08 or higher as shown by analysis of the person’s breath or blood made under RCW 46.61.506; or
(b) While the person is under the influence of or affected by intoxicating liquor or any drug; or
(c) While the person is under the combined influence of or affected by intoxicating liquor and any drug; or
(d) THAT THE THC CONCENTRATION OF THE DRIVER'S BLOOD IS 5.00 OR MORE; OR THE DRIVER IS UNDER AGE 21 AND THE THC CONCENTRATION OF THE DRIVER'S BLOOD IS ABOVE 0.00

@ 157 - Why do you think there have been THREE different attempts in the last 2 months to amend the law to require PROOF OF ACTUAL IMPAIRMENT, if I-502 changes nothing? Why the sudden influx of legislation regarding cannabis DUI?

@ 158 - if I-502 works along with the system that is already in place - why the need to change the CURRENT DUI laws which, as dozens of I-502 supporters in this thread have pointed out, are WORKING as intended?

@164: "Why do you think there have been THREE different attempts in the last 2 months to amend the law to require PROOF OF ACTUAL IMPAIRMENT, if I-502 changes nothing?"

Why don't you tell us?

"if I-502 works along with the system that is already in place - why the need to change the CURRENT DUI laws which, as dozens of I-502 supporters in this thread have pointed out, are WORKING as intended?"

Irrelevant to the argument you're making. I know that the hard limit will exist now, but the scare tactics you're using also exist under the current law.

I-502 *seems to* protect those under the arbitrary limit whereas before they didn't have any protections.

ive been paying close attention to this thread and the pro502 people just dont get it and dont get the way our lawws work

As opposed to the "big time consitutuionalist" who doesn't get how our constitution is interpreted.

"Why do you think there have been THREE different attempts in the last 2 months to amend the law to require PROOF OF ACTUAL IMPAIRMENT, if I-502 changes nothing? Why the sudden influx of legislation regarding cannabis DUI?"

Like I previously posted. It was 1. to try to try and stop the fear mongering by the vocal minority of critics, 2. to assure those who were falling for the fear mongering promulgated by the vocal minority, 3. to be forearmed, whether I-502 passes or not, to accommodate medical cannabis users if the state attempts to pass a zero tolerance dui-c in the future.

As I have said before. I am not about arguing over this. The issues are laid out clearly in the nuetral statement of positions below. And here they are:

New Approach Washington holds that the DUI-C provision is directed at the concern over impaired driving. If, and only if, a driver is stopped with probable cause for suspected impaired driving, and there are reasonable grounds for believing that a driver is impaired, and reasonable grounds to believe the impairment is caused by marijuana or a drug other than alcohol, the officer may arrest and a blood test may be required. Blood testing is for the psycho-active delta-9 THC and not the metabolite carboxy THC.

The opposition holds that medicinal marijuana users can have very high levels of delta-9 THC (over the proposed legal limit) but are not impaired. Because of their high levels of THC the law would "per se" make it illegal for them to drive. They fear that police will stop and even target them without probable cause and without evidence of impaired driving and demand that they submit to a blood test. This would result in arrest and possible loss of driving privileges.

So there it is. It's up to the voters...

our constitution declares us a free trial and 502 takes that away. its LMAO funny that when patients against calls you out about how you can say things won't be bad for people when there have been attempts to change it, and your answer is you tell me? Haha!! youre the one saying that its not bad (haha)...you tell us why youre right which you cant. just like saying it "seems" to protect those who are under the limit...right...haha.

@169: As of right now, Per se laws are supported by the courts as Constitutional.

undead most all of them have rebuttable presumption which is why.

@168 "It was 1. to try to try and stop the fear mongering by the vocal minority of critics, 2. to assure those who were falling for the fear mongering promulgated by the vocal minority, 3. to be forearmed, whether I-502 passes or not, to accommodate medical cannabis users if the state attempts to pass a zero tolerance dui-c in the future."

1) Fear mongering by the vocal minority? We didn't know NORML is a vocal minority. They have consistently asserted for YEARS that per se DUI for cannabis is "arbitrary, unnecessary and unscientific" and continue to stand by that assertion to this day.

2) If it was so important to assure those who were "falling for the fear mongering," why didn't the Legislative attempts gain any traction - and why did one of the bill sponsors remove the protective clause herself? If it's so easy to "fix the faults" in I-502, as NAW continues to claim, why didn't these efforts go anywhere?

3) The state won't have to pass zero tolerance DUI-C in the future. NAW is doing it for them RIGHT NOW with I-502, which contains a ZERO TOLERANCE, ZERO EXCEPTION policy for a wide swath of Washington citizens.

Lastly, your "position" statement is ANYTHING BUT NEUTRAL.

@ 170 - if per se laws have already been deemed constitutional, how can I-502 supporters continue to insist that this part of the proposal can be challenged in a court of law? To answer your earlier question about why legislation was introduced to require ACTUAL PROOF OF IMPAIRMENT, it was done to proactively remedy the flaws in I-502, something NAW itself has been unwilling to do.

EVERYONE KNOWS EVERYTHING! AND NO ONE IS EVER WRONG…until later.

@149 – What is the use? You totally missed every single point of that post. If you think that PANAW is doing a great job of spreading its message to the masses with their voice, then great. Again, you are alienating everyone except the PANAW choir. We hear you. We understand the argument. We know the science. But, no one else is listening. That is why 502's language is the way it is. That is why they collected the sigs they needed. That is why HB2454 didn't make it out of committee - no one else is listening. By understanding both sides of the argument and opining the views of everyone, you think NORML is personally attacking you. The "you're either with us or against us" diatribe you carry on is self - righteousness to a tee. Sorry if that hurts your feelings, but there is no humility it all your tone. None. That won't get you the sympathy you need for your mission to keep an ounce out of the hands of all citizens over 21. They don't care about dui. That is the larger perspective of the citizenry of this state.

"Quote: @145 - Washington NORML - Patients and others have been lead to believe they stand to lose their driving privileges due to an automatic DUI because that is the very idea that YOUR ORGANIZATION has promoted for years!"

I must be too high to understand what are you saying? That is EXACTLY the fear that your group is promoting. Seriously, I can’t seem to find that information anywhere. Do you mean http://norml.org/library/item/you-are-go…, or are you referring to http://norml.org/library/item/cannabis-a…

"Quote: Tell us why NORML is FIGHTING the very same DUI language in COLORADO that it is DEFENDING in WASHINGTON? Why does NORML encourage per se DUI in Washington, but the exact same proposal is indefenisble in Colorado?"

The DUI language in Colorado was introduced by a legislator in Colorado and called for a 0ng threshold for everyone. It was fought against by NORML and many others and shot down in committee hearings. NAW introduced the language for I-502 and citizens signed the petition. I do not recall NORML’s endorsement of this language prior to the reality of it making the ballot. And, if you recall, Mary Lou Dickerson’s HB2454 - which at least tried to get some protection language for patients documented - was authored in large part by NORML’s Deputy Director, and it was also shot down in committee hearings. When you say, “Encourage per se DUI” do you mean to say that NORML vocally supports the idea that green dui is great? That is an outright lie. NORML has always promoted and encouraged the reform of laws to include, at the very least, the rights of responsible adults to smoke a joint in the privacy of their own home. The idea of the rights of possession for all citizens over 21 is consistent with that notion.

"Quote: You say we were not passing out NORML's literature on cannabis and driving. WHERE WERE YOU? We have been passing out NORML's literature on this topic from the moment that we learned per se DUIC had a chance of taking foothold in our state"

To be honest, I hadn’t heard of patients against 502 (patients against everyone else?), until the day before Seattle Hempfest this year. On the other hand, WANORML has always offered Sensible Washington literature, including Cannabis and Driving: A Rational Review. I was literally told at a Sensible Washington meeting that they thought the Marijuana is Safer than Alcohol book was better for their message. Co – Authored by Paul Armentano, NORML’s Deputy Director, Marijuana is safer the Alcohol speaks to the “regulation” of cannabis like alcohol, and while they may not have intended a dui limit, that is what you have with 502 – regulation of cannabis like liquor, right down to the dui.

"Quote: You say "the courts are not going to put everyone out of work or take away freedoms by taking away drivers licenses." How long did YOU have to give up your license when getting arrested and charged for driving after admittedly smoking hash? Yet NORML wants to insinuate that WE are the ones who want to drive impaired?"

I didn’t lose my license at all. I did not admitt to smoking hash, I only admitted to smoking herb TWO HOURS earlier (the reality was I had just smoked hash, but that is only you and for the papers – I did not admit that to the officer) And, I refused all sobriety tests, including a blood draw. I should have lost my license, but DOL never got the paperwork. Even with that technicality my attorney was afraid to take it to trial. Do you see what I am saying? Even without per se, and even with the officer not sending in my blood draw refusal, I couldn’t win. So how am I being spared now? Without per se, and with a technicality, I was still guilty.

"Quote: As for jumping through hoops, per se DUI eliminates all of those hoops, including rebuttable presumption. You will not have the luxury of taking a plea bargain when police and prosecutors have an open and shut case because you exceeded the "arbitrary, unnecessary and unscientific" per se DUI limit. You will not be getting your license back when that DUI charge sticks because the contents of your blood are the ONLY EVIDENCE NEEDED TO CONVICT YOU."

That is simply not true. Everyone who pays the fines, takes the classes and does whatever else the court demands gets to drive - even if they blow a 2.0 BAC with obvious impairment. The dui regulatory scheme is not an attack on patients. Every single day people are convicted of dui impairment. And, every single day they are still driving.

"Quote: Lastly, may we remind NAW, NORML and others that patients are not the ones who NEED the votes to win. I-502 needs the votes. Alienating patients, who are your base supporters, is not the way to win votes or future donations. See this enlightening article from Steve Elliott: http://www.tokeofthetown.com/2012/01/att…"

We are not "alienating patients" by telling the truth about public opinion. Public opinion has little to do with science. And the whole ,"you're either with use or against us" argument is not valid.
I wholeheartedly agree that I -502 needs votes to win. But, my point, which you so clearly missed that it actually hurts my brain, is that you are trying to convince the millions of voters who are not patients to listen to you. I – 502 already has the soccer moms and conservatives voting yes. Do you expect the millions of soccer moms and conservatives - whom you are trying to convince to vote, "no", to listen to you, or us, or anyone else SCREAMING for unlimited, “ f%*&ing smoking while driving rights” and expect them to vote , “no”, ? Well KEEP ON SCREAMING and maybe they will all vote your way. But, by trying to tell you that the way you are presenting your argument is not working, I am just trying to help here.
I have great sympathy for many patients, including very close family and close friends. I am a patient. Do you think PANAW is looking at the mainstream voter objectively? If you say ,”yes”, I will not waste any more of either one of our time. I mean, c’mon. Re – read my analogy to dry counties here in WA. You are scaring people away from you by saying that you want to smoke as much as you want and drive, you are not bringing them towards you. This is the objective reality. But, you don’t have to pay attention. Again, I am only trying to help hone your argument.

"Quote:" P.S. The phrase "alcohol is safer than marijuana" is the title of a book by NORML'S DEPUTY DIRECTOR. If you have issues with that slogan, perhaps you should discuss it with Paul Armentano."

Mason Tvert and Paul Armentano are great acquaintances of mine whom I see and communicate with regularly. Co – Authored by Paul Armentano, NORML’s Deputy Director, Marijuana is safer the Alcohol, speaks to the “regulation” of cannabis like alcohol, and while they may not have intended a dui limit, that is what you have with 502 – regulation of cannabis like liquor, right down to the dui. But, again, you missed my point so cleanly that it actually saddens me as an activist.

"The "you're either with us or against us" diatribe you carry on is self - righteousness to a tee. Sorry if that hurts your feelings, but there is no humility it all your tone."

Hahahahahaha...have you watched ANY of NORMl show live recently?

@174: Baseless, thoughtless snark that doesn't match the substance or tone of WANORML's posts here.

To hear Mason Tvert of the Colorado effort, and Alison Holcomb of New Approach Washington, discuss the pros and cons and reasonings behind the two initiatives on a panel at the Drug Policy Alliance Reform conference go here:

http://www.reformconference.org/conferen…

Cydney, as an activist, patient, friend and relative of very sick patients, and a green dui guy, my personal opinion hasn’t changed. And, with my access to the national NORML affiliates and ARO mailing lists, the WANORML advisory board, along with several close friends who are attorneys, including a defense attorney and a federal prosecutor, my personal perspective is tempered by many different opinions.

INMHO there are hero’s on both sides and corruption everywhere. What this is about as far as NORML is concerned is the right of all citizens over 21 (patients and non – patients) to legally (not an arrest-with-affirmative-defense in court) possess an ounce and smoke a joint in the privacy of their own home.

We can discuss the constitutionality of this over a meal and a joint outside of the Palace in downtown Seattle until the wee hours of the morning, but, ultimately, that is an academic discussion between like-minded activists. And, in the case that I -502 wins the votes of Washington voters, and until the courts actually hear the cases and reach a decision, it remains as such. The possibilities and probabilities of the outcome of this or that are not necessarily the ultimate reality, until that gavel comes down. What has never been open to discussion is strategy by Sensible Washington or PANAW.

And, while my personal opinion hasn’t changed, this ultimately is not about me. I cannot abuse the position of Executive Director for Washington NORML by fabricating public opinions that are not true.

Green DUI’s are lame for a conditioned patient, speaking from experience. But that argument is a slippery slope, in that one could say that a seasoned alcoholic can function at BAC twice that which would render a non-user unconscious. Further, most people don’t care about issues of constitutionality and dui. Those discussions are generally reserved for activists – unfortunately. We don’t make public opinion.
BTW, I do feel that personal possession without arrest is consistent with NORML’s mission to reform marijuana laws so that a responsible adult has the legal right to enjoy a joint in the privacy of their own home.

“What about our fair trial?” Great question! When I asked my attorney why I didn’t get a chance for a fair trial he said, simply, “you were guilty”, so much for a fair trial. If I am guilty now, I guess that won’t change. And, if I can’t get a trial now, what’s the bottom line difference to my freedom or pocketbook? That is the question people are asking. And somehow all of the scary technical differences outlined by PANAW between current law and potential future law wouldn’t have made a difference to anyone charged with a green dui, so how will you convince voters that 502 dui are more dangerous when the current reality suggests otherwise?

you sound like you understand both sides washington NORML so can we PLEASE stop with the cheech and chong comparisons and making it seem like we all just want to drive high?

@174

Way to miss the point. Which is my point. This is too much effort. My point is that no one is listening to you. Not because of your arguments, but the way you present them. Go ahead, stone me, wish me cancer, and burn me at the stake.

"The rightous rise, with burning eyes, of hatred and ill will."
Witch Hunt. Rush, Moving Pictures.

#178 Finally someone gets it! THANK YOU!!!

That's what the millions of VOTING soccer moms and conservatives are hearing from PANAW...arguing the difference between a functioning cannabis users and a functioning alcoholic is lost on them.

NORML is telling PANAW that our constiuents are not receiving their message. Yet PANAW is not listening either.

What voters are hearing is the comparison you mention above, that is not my personal attitude.

Smoke if you've got 'em.

Vote on.

Hey SW, why don't you go work on collecting signatures instead of drumming up resistance to an initiative that actually has a chance to pass? If you gather enough signatures (big if) your initiative will be embarassingly rejected by the voters. Do you actually think the voters will want to go from prohibition to complete freedom of Cannabis in one step?

@173 – Washington NORML – You want to talk about humility, self-righteousness, alienating people and the “you’re either with us or against us” diatribe? We have never ONCE said “you’re either with us or against us.” NOT ONCE. In fact, the overwhelming majority of Patients Against I-502 have personally fought for legalization and will continue to do so. It is NAW, and now NORML, who contend that those who oppose I-502’s “arbitrary, unnecessary and unscientific” per se DUIC limit are “with us or voting with the drug czar, the feds, cops and prohibitionists.”

In an effort to clear up your admitted confusion about NORML’s own positions, the statement that we referred to in http://norml.org/library/item/you-are-go… is “these laws potentially classify many SOBER drivers as impaired under the law, solely because they were presumed to have consumed a controlled substance -- particularly marijuana -- at some previous, unspecified point in time.”

In the other link you referenced http://norml.org/library/item/cannabis-a… the statement that backs up I-502 opponent’s concerns is “marijuana's primary psychoactive compound, THC, may accumulate and be detected in blood for SEVERAL HOURS in occasional users; in some chronic users, THC may be present in blood for a period of DAYS after past use, long after any performance impairing effects have worn off.”

If you are still “too high to understand,” please contact NORML’s Deputy Director. He should be able to help clear your fog. As for Mary Lou Dickerson’s bill, HB2454, being “authored in large part” by Paul Armentano, he was asked to provide written testimony on the dangers of per se DUIC, but he did not author the legislation, in large part or otherwise. He did, however, offer strong opposition to I-502’s DUI provisions from the start. Unfortunately, New Approach Washington casually tossed his advice aside, along with that of many other respected reformers.

When we say that NORML encourages per se DUI, it is FAR from an outright lie. One of your most vocal critics of I-502 opponents, Russ Belville, has repeatedly disregarded concerns about per se DUI as nothing more than hysterics. He also contends that cannabis users are not especially susceptible to Cannabis DUI now and nothing about per se DUIC will make cannabis users any more susceptible to arrest than they already are. If this is true, why is NORML staunchly opposing the imposition of per se DUIC laws in Colorado? Opposition to the very same law is considered “hysterics from a vocal minority” in Washington, but completely legitimate in Colorado? Are we supposed to take comfort in the fact that NORML did not endorse the language before it made the ballot, but now vigorously supports it?

The reason you didn’t hear about Patients Against I-502 before Seattle Hempfest is because there was no per se DUIC proposal to oppose. Rest assured, we would have opposed (and WILL oppose) ANY and all attempts to put a per se DUI into place that will cause UNIMPAIRED drivers to be wrongfully convicted. Never once have we said (or even vaguely implied) that we should be able to “smoke as much as we want and drive.” That is the unfortunate perception being painted by NAW and framed by NORML.

And what does WANORML offering Sensible Washington literature have to do with Patients Against I-502? Our group might have crossover with Sensible Washington, but it is not run by that group, nor has it ever been. Where this idea came from is ludicrous. Doug Hiatt is not affiliated withPatients Against I-502, nor has he ever spoken on our behalf. This is another political ploy being used to discredit opponents. In Doug’s defense, however, we must point out how quickly NORML has forgotten his countless contributions to this movement. The same goes for Vivian McPeak, who along with Seattle Hempfest, is now being smeared by your organization. Do you really think these types of tactics are earning NORML (or I-502) additional support?

You ask how you the current DUI law worked to your advantage and I-502 would work to your disadvantage. The answer is very simple. You do not currently have a DUI charge on your record because you took a plea bargain. If I-502 passes, you would not have enjoyed the luxury of a plea bargain because police and prosecutors would have had an open and shut case. No need to offer anyone a plea bargain when prosecutors have the guaranteed guilty verdict that per se DUI brings with it. The fact that you managed to escape a DUI charge with fines and classes does NOT mean others will get that same treatment.

Lastly, NORML’s blatant attacks (now being leveled almost HOURLY by “radical russ”) are not the only behavior that is alienating patients. NORML’s admitted censorship of any and all opposing viewpoints is not being taken lightly, nor are the numerous offensive and threatening e-mails that have been sent to I-502 opponents. Do you know that foundation@NORML.org has told patients to “look over their shoulders.” Don’t take our word for it. You can find a screen shot of this outlandish e-mail on the Patients Against New Approach Washington Facebook page.

The point that YOU have so clearly missed (as has NAW) is that the opposition campaign does not need to convince millions of voters. We only need to convince enough to keep this unethical legislation from getting passed. With just 47% support and 13% undecided in the most recent poll, it will NOT take millions of people to accomplish this goal. Opponents don’t need votes from soccer moms or conservatives, supporters do. What supporters also need are the GUARANTEED YES VOTES that would have come from its base.

179 - Before you get too hysterical - we have not wished to stone, burn at the stake or give cancer to any I-502 supporter - not even Alison Holcomb herself. This implication goes far beyond distorting the truth and into the bounds of outright lies.

@62

Thank God for Russ Belville.

great response Patients!

@172 wrote: "To answer your earlier question about why legislation was introduced to require ACTUAL PROOF OF IMPAIRMENT, it was done to proactively remedy the flaws in I-502, something NAW itself has been unwilling to do."

This is patently false. Please reread post #157.

The reason the legislature removed the added language to the proposed MUCA bill was because it was unnecessary as it is simply a restatement of current law.

I was involved in working on tying to get this accommodation introduced. My intention was not motivated by trying to fix a deficit in I-502. It was an attempt to do what I could to bring us together.

It was an attempt to codify, makes explicit, spell it out--solely for the benefit of easing the concerns of those who use cannabis medicinally--that which is already assumed and required by the current law and under I-502.

I-502 "does not lessen the legal requirements under Washington law that there be: (1) probable cause for an arrest and (2) reasonable grounds to believe a driver is impaired before a breath or blood test may be administered."

My intentions was to unite us in common purpose toward the goal of ending marijuana prohibition by overcoming a perceived hurdle. I thought if the legislature actually wrote out that DUI for medical cannabis users be based, primarily on evidence of actual impairment (as is the expectation under current law and under I-502), then we could unite and face our real opponents, the federal government and the prohibitionists, instead of fighting among ourselves. I find myself somewhat embarrassed at my naiveté and that those efforts are now being misinterpreted and used against I-502.

I remain convinced that the DUI provision is not going to be a problem for medical users who don't drive impaired--which is virtually all of them. The FAQ's at the New Approach Washington website lay out their position pretty well. However, if actual problems arise post I-502 with medical users and the DUIC limits, HB 2454 is an example of a relatively simple and quick legislative fix.

@182 - A diatribe is simply a long, bitter discourse. I never ONCE said that “you’re either with us or against us” was an actual quote.

I did speak to NORML’s Deputy Director Paul Armentano regarding involvement with HB2454.

Russ’s comments “disregarding” DUI are not necessarily an encouragement of DUI, but I understand your point. As for NORML’s involvement in opposing DUIC Colorado I can only speculate that it is because it calls for a 0ng limit, as opposed to 5ng for WA. And, in Colorado it was introduced as a separate issue by the legislature, not as part of a 1oz legalization for 21 and over package deal through the initiative process.

The “unfortunate perception” of being able to “smoke as much as we want and drive” is implied by the argument against an impairment limit. That concept is not being painted and framed by anyone except PANAW. It is unfortunate that most voters do not understand the difference. Again, we don’t make public opinion. I wish…

WANORML has never smeared Douglas Hiatt or Vivian McPeak. I personally love those guys and I hope they know it. Douglas has done more pro bono work as an activist than any other attorney I know. Vivian is a wordsmith with a great perspective and a venerable saint as the master of one of the most significant gatherings of people in the scope of humanity in terms of shear numbers, not to mention topic. Plus, they are both cool to hang out with. And, their advice is priceless.

People have asked, “What does an I-502 DUI that have to do with driving privileges when compared to current DUI?” People with DUI get to drive now. People with DUI get to drive if 502 passes. And, could you explain to this thread what is the main difference between a driving felony plea and a driving felony DUI, besides a breathalyzer fee?

WANORML cannot address the issue of hourly attacks by NORML. We do not have admin privilege to “radical russ” or foundation@NORML. org.

While there are millions of voters in WA, I will not argue with your percentages. 47% support, 13% undecided, 40% no. 11% of the undecided plus 40% no equals 51%. If 2,500,000 people vote, 11% would be around 275,000 people. I stand corrected.

http://wasafecannabis.com/misc/norml-att…

I have been chronicling the inconsistencies between what OCTA backers in Oregon say and what they write in their actual proposal. Their paid signature gatherers lurk on the trains, corners, and at events gathering signatures for "legalization" from the unsuspecting public. What their initiative actually proposes is a complete government monopoly that is tailor made for dominance by large corporations.

OCTA is an example of everything bad that can be included in a "legalization" proposal. It is about control and limitation, not legalization. OCTA creates a government monopoly where all growers and producers must sell ONLY to the government who will determine at what price and how much can be sold. OCTA also has limits on consumption and provisions that require the monitoring of consumption.

OCTA proposes a commission called OCC that will control how much can be sold, bought, and grown including at what prices and at state run stores only. It is not a good deal for anyone but big corporations. It does not create jobs for existing growers in any meaningful way. Instead it sets up multiple barriers to their entering the future market.

A diverse well represented market of top shelf craft grown cannabis is not going to come from the same old faceless global corporations that have driven out quality all across the Country. It will come from the tens of thousands of small growers who currently risk their freedom to keep strains alive.

Link to this information:
http://www.otisgardens.com/forum/index.p…

That link:

http://www.otisgardens.com/forum/index.p…

self-righteous fucktards ruin the party, once again. right-on, bruah!

the only true way to settle this: Johnny Fever, Venus Fly-Trap and the OSP hotboxing in a '74 Grand Prix, w/ Nurse Jackie doing the blood draw.

Of course, all of the arguments they've made against the strict THC limit can be made against the strict BAC (Blood Alcohol Content) limit as well. Everyone metabolizes alcohol differently. It's different for men and women. Different people are "impaired" at different levels.

So, does the anti-502 crowd want to do away with the alcohol limits too? Do you believe that anyone should be allowed to drive no matter how much of any intoxicant they've had as long as they can pass a field sobriety test? Do you really want your determination of DUID based strictly on the testimony of a cop that pulled you over in the middle of the night? A cop who might not like (blacks, gays, hispanics, whatever group you're in) and might be biased? I would prefer a set unambiguous number. Now 5ng might not be the right number but I'd rather have a number than have it totally up to the cop whether I'm impaired.

@193: "Do you believe that anyone should be allowed to drive no matter how much of any intoxicant they've had as long as they can pass a field sobriety test?"

Yes, they do. They desire/require that ambiguity and refuse to EVER seek accuracy in their limits. They need it to hide behind.

@192: This is about what a jury must conclude in order to determine guilt. The roadside cop is heavily influential, as is the lab work that comes with a blood test. In this country, police do not judge guilt, judges and juries do. Currently, a judge or jury must be convinced that someone was impaired by THC in order for that person to be convicted of DUI-C. If I-502 passes, there will be no need to convince anyone that someone was impaired, only of the concentration of active THC in his or her blood shortly after operation of the vehicle was above a certain level. I don't that's a just policy. Nor do I think that it's just to consider someone guilty of DUI alcohol just because he or she had .08 BAC or greater. I do not think we should allow people to endanger others by driving while impaired. I do not think we should continue arresting thousands of adult Washingtonians every year in order to avoid the unjust law I-502 will create. I've watched people try very hard, then fail by longshots, to end cannabis prohibition outright in Washington. I do not want us to wait until 2016 or 2020 for another shot at this. 2012 is the year to do it.

As the co-owner of 4Evergreen Group, I've talked to many 'yes' votes on 1-502 that signed the petition and planned on voting that way. As soon as I even briefly explained to them even the basics of the anti-502 bullet points their opinions quickly and whole-heartedly switch to no.

The reason the opposition is only polling at 40% is because not many people really understand the fast one that the ACLU and the ATF (WSLCB) are trying to pull here. PANAW has done a great job compiling the arguments and spreading the message, but they are a smallish organization with limited resources.

All I can say is that more resources are on the way, with a VERY PROGRESSIVE style of information distribution. Lets see what polling says in June, I'd be willing to bet it will be flipped by then. 502 will lose most of its support by Hempfest, I'm very confident of this.

Next time vet your ideas with atty's and advocates on all sides before you create precedent. It would have saved you guys a SHITLOAD of time and ultimately money. Its very unfortunate, because this would have been the perfect year to pass legalization. Too bad the ACLU fucked it up for everyone.

@196: "As soon as I even briefly explained to them even the basics of the anti-502 bullet points"

Right, but longer explanation have me back to supporting I-502, because the "basic" bulletpoints aren't grounded in reality.

@197

That's far from true. 502 isn't grounded in reality.. its a complete fantasy, by the literal definition of it. Alison Holcomb's fantasy of a Federal job in DC and Dominic Holden's attempt to ride her coattails along with the rest of the supporters. (PS HOLCOMB AND HOLDEN don't inhale, so why the hell did we let them lead the pro-legalization team? Bottom line, they simply don't give a shit about the real community).

Giving the ATF the oversight of local marijuana laws. Retarded policy, a complete Fantasy.

Thinking a judge wont shove this POS bill in the same place Gregoire shoved 5073. Fantasy.

A 21 year old passing a pipe to a 20 year old is a felony under 502. HUH? Are you kidding me.

Two people sharing a joint is a distribution charge under 502.

Washington States teen drivers will have a higher DUI rate than anywhere else in the country because of 502, keeping out of the college of their choice and from jobs. GREAT LIBERAL POLICY MAKING ACLU. Where did you get your Law degrees from anyway?

The current science is inconclusive, now that this has become a hot button issue there is A TON of new research that is being done specifically on patient testing with regards to ng/ml and corresponding impairment. The results are coming and it will be a deathblow to 502.

We could write bullet points for hours on 502 because there are SO MANY reasons why it is SO ENTIRELY WRONG and just to be clear I am 100% in support of legalization, but this is the worst possible way to do it.

If only the pro-502 team could have come off of their high horses long enough to ask some difficult questions of themselves and this bill we COULD HAVE GOT THIS RIGHT. But they didn't, and in return this bill is bound to fail.

@197: Your comment is misleading. Passing a joint is a felony *now* in this state. Delivery (i.e., transfer from one person to another), cultivation, or sale of cannabis is punishable by up to five years in prison and a fine up to $10,000. Any sale to a minor at least three years younger than the offender doubles the possible penalties. Passage of I-502 would not change any of that.

It's unfortunate that polling indicated that Washington voters would not have majority support for a stronger reform measures in 2012, but I'd rather leave delivery and unlicensed cultivation a crime than to continue locking up and taking money from thousands of people in our state each year because they're found in posession of this flower.

nurse mimi @128 from your post at the link: "And now NORML sends it’s minions to personally attack patients, both collectively, and by also individually singling out the most vocal members with personal attacks, in order to back an initiative that solidifies NORML’s stance on cannabis patients."

I defy and challenge Nurse Meiwes to produce a single instance where I have called her a name or attacked her personally. Anyone familiar my posts over the years knows that that is not my style. I have never found name calling and personal attacks to be an effective strategy for winning hearts and minds. Name calling and personal attacks represent a lack of technique or discipline. It is not effective advocacy.

The most critical thing I have said about Nurse Mimi is that Mimi "as the spokesperson [for her initiative] is the best thing that could happen for I-502, but unfortunately a disaster looming for medical cannabis users and public relations."

However, all over the internet I have been the recipient of personal attacks by Nurse Mimi.

Below is what Nurse Mimi wrote about yours truly on January 3 here at The Stranger. After crowing that she has discovered that "notSpicoli" is really Dominic Holden (the same assertion that Dr. Mobley made), which I considered a compliment, but is untrue.

Apparently convinced that I'm not Dominic, she then made another wild (bordering on delusional) claim:
"Yeah, [not] Spicoli, that’s why when you were finally outed you screamed like a little kid to facebook about it, right? Said I got personal info off of another site and outed you, but you were a dumb ass and admitted it too, and now everyone knows you are Solomon Schecter (you have outed me a number of times, so all IS fair), dumb ass without a single bachelor’s degree who happens to make medibles and SELLS to patients!...What a hypocrite. I should have figured it out that first time, when you were asked to leave that booth because you were going off on people for no good reason, at least none we could figure out. But you were going off on people as NotSpicoli, only they knew you as Solomon...Your lies are catching up to you and now YOU get tangled in your own web."

On another site she replied to me, "You are a joke."

On October 30 she issued a malediction, "Your selfish outlook is telling, and I do hope someday you will suffer as those who are disabled do, and that it is more difficult for you than it is for me."

Here's one that is inexplicable but seems like a personal attack, "Stop being such a hypocrite and grow a vagina! (Balls are way too delicate)" and a dismissive, "Screw you."

On December 20, in response to one of my posts her reply, "You really are an idiot!"

Other examples abound and include labeling me "bad," "disgusting," "cruel," "uncaring," and "ignorant."

With the feds commitment to wipe out safe access to medical cannabis in our nation and the growing public perception that there are significant numbers of users of medical cannabis who do so in order to skirt the law, one would hope that the medical cannabis community would do whatever it could to make and maintain friends.

Prior to her intemperate remarks against me and her decision to work against I-502 as much as to put forth an accommodation initiative, not only would I have signed her initiative, I would have collected signatures and given some dollars. And I sure that many other I-502 supporters would also have supported her initiative as well. (Even though I feel that the DUI-C section is merely a restatement of current law.)

As a final example of how not to treat friends, Nurse Mimi has been critical of Peter Lewis, the retired CEO of Progressive Insurance, for his contribution to I-502 and even alludes to financial motives on his part--an attempt to sell high priced insurance rates for those convicted of DUI-C.

Who is a greater friend of medical cannabis and marijuana reform than Peter Lewis--a medical cannabis user himself? He just gave $526,000 to virtually finance the medical cannabis ballot initiative in Massachusetts. He's virtually financing the medical cannabis initiative in Ohio.

Making enemies of friends is a terrible strategy for effective reform.

@198: My point, which you're continuing to prove, is that the vast majority of the bulletpoints are ALREADY illegal and ALREADY in practice, what's important is what changes.

Better educate yourself, please.

Do you honestly think that law enforcement is going to take all of budget that they currently receive to combat marijuana related 'criminal' activity and simply tell the DOJ and Olympia that 'Its ok, keep the money. Now that pot has been legalized you can shrink our budget and we will go ahead and lay off a bunch of cops'. If you believe that then you are naive enough to vote for 502.

What will ACTUALLY happen is the same money that is now being made off of minor possession and low level distribution will be shifted to 'combating' impaired driving. What that actually means is that they will NEED to prove that there is an increased risk to public safety so that the budget that they currently receive will not be reduced. NOT ONLY THAT, but they will need to MAKE much more money off of DUIDs to make up for the significant loss to DOJ Coffers once they cant make the money off of possession and minor distribution charges

DUIDs are WAY WORSE THAN POSSESSION CHARGES.

ANY RAND of all people understood this principal, you obviously dont @201. Libertarianism (IM assuming thats who you identify with) would NEVER pass this POS bill because it puts EVEN MORE emphasis on government intervention.

Quite frankly you either 1) Dont get it, 2) Work for the Holcomb clan (my guess), 3) Dont care. Which one is it?

This is NOT legalization. Its a casual shift in drug policy and it NOT ENOUGH.

DO NO HARM is the first rule in the activist lobby. If anyone on this panel can prove this DOES NO HARM you have my complete support.

I didnt think so.