Posted yesterday evening and moved up.
The ticker below is counting the arrests, dollars, and lost revenue our nation is racking up in its ridiculous war on pot. Perfect or not, Initiative 502 is the only viable campaign we’ve ever seen in Washington State to end these laws—and surmount a real challenge to federal prohibition—and the measure, as I reported yesterday, is on the road to making the 2012 ballot.
But some medical-marijuana patients have recently come out opposing I-502. As we reported when I-502 was filed in June, the measure backed by prosecutors and public-health leaders is the most cogent, competent effort in US history to legalize, tax, and regulate marijuana. Certain medical pot activists, however, are complaining that I-502 doesn’t allow people to grow pot at home (only buy it in stores), that it only allows adults to buy and possess one ounce of pot (patients could still have up to 24 ounces, but they say the one-ounce limit is too restrictive), and that a DUI provision is so toxic that the entire measure should be rejected. They’ve even launched a website called Patients Against I-502.
Edward Agazarm, one of the initiative’s loudest critics promoting the aforementioned website, sent an email the other day with a subject line declaring that I-502 was “rape by cops w/guns and the ACLU.”
“Rape”?
The “rape”—according to Agazarm—is that I-502 sets a per se cut-off for stoned driving. It would penalize drivers with 5 nanograms of THC per milliliter of blood with a gross misdemeanor. “That level is NOT supported by science and would subject patients to highly-invasive blood testing, unnecessary confinement and a criminal conviction that will haunt them for life,” the activists’ website says. They’re right that the science is minimal and some people could exceed that limit if they are regular medical-marijuana users.
But it’s dishonest to declare this this measure will subject people to more blood testing or result in a change of policing protocol. If voters pass I-502, officers would be held to the same standards as they are today: They would still require probable cause to stop a car, evidence of driver impairment, and any tests would have to be conducted by a medical professional (typically at a medical clinic or an ER). Those are the standards now, they wouldn’t change, and we hardly ever see those consequences for medical marijuana patients now because they aren’t impaired and cops don’t have probable cause to stop their vehicles. If cops didn’t have probable cause or evidence of impairment, but took action anyway, a defense attorney could move to have the whole thing tossed out—just like today.
Some medical marijuana patients note that the cut-off is automatic—anyone who exceeds 5n/mg is automatically guilty of DUI. But I-502 actually does something very useful for marijuana users accused of DUI. It separates active metabolites, which indicate inebriation, from THC-COOH, the inactive metabolite that remains in the system for days or weeks. In other words, it tests to see whether people are currently stoned, not simply whether they’ve used marijuana in the past month.
Why include the DUI language and the provision about only purchasing pot in licensed stores? So the initiative will pass. That’s what New Approach Washington’s polling showed would win (54 percent to 38 percent). That DUI provision alone prompted 62 percent of voters to say they were more likely to support I-502, and only 11 percent said it would make them less likely, according to a poll in May by Quinlan Rosner Research. And the critics should remember: Authorized patients could still grow, use, and exchange pot under the existing medical-marijuana law passed by voters in 1998.
Explaining why the DUI provisions, analogous to the blood-alcohol content limit at 0.08, were so persuasive with voters, New Approach Washington campaign director Alison Holcomb says: “Nobody likes people driving a two-ton piece of metal on the public highway while they are impaired and putting people at risk of death or serious injury. That is not acceptable in our society.”
Is this new measure the perfect package—is it an ideal scenario for marijuana users? No.
No law is ever perfect for everybody, and waiting for the perfect law means waiting forever without ever changing the horrible law.
But is I-502 winnable? Is it better than what we have now? Is it the best shot this country’s ever had at lowering those numbers that keep climbing in the ticker at the top of those post? Yes, yes, yes. It’s too bad that minor—and likely inconsequential—elements of the proposal are being twisted by a handful of “rape”-screaming, histrionic, would-be supporters to undermine their own movement.
@48 — Did you not read the post? The DUI provision is there SO THE INITIATIVE WILL PASS. You know, so we can finally get around to legalizing marijuana so all those people on the tickers can stop being arrested and so — oh, I don’t know — people can stop dying in Mexico? Don’t you think 40,000 is enough? Or have you been too self-absorbed to notice that the War on Drugs is about more than you and your convenience?
Oh, wait — you’re Cannacare. Just answered my own question. My bad.
But if we legalized drugs like marijuana and cocaine, or even de-criminalized them, then Wall-Street banks like Wachovia and Wells Fargo couldn’t launder the $700 billion annually in liquid cash to pad their balance sheets.
I-502 is another of Allisons ill conceived ideas attempting to give herself some credibility amongst the real cannabis activists in our state. Just because your an attorney, doesn’t mean that your smart. I would never support anything that is not based on sound science. Isn’t that a no brainer for most people? KMJ.
A felony for carrying over an ounce of pot? Are you kidding me? I love it that you didn’t even mention that here. 8th amendment of the US Constitution: “Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any other place subject to adjudication.” SO – If I am convicted of any felony – I loose my right to participate in any political process, local or national. I can’t get a job or buy a house. You think this is just? Receiving a FELONY charge for carrying an 1 ounce and 1 gram of marijuana? Who are you working for? The Feds? S
Really?? Do none of you get it?
If I-502 passes it will result in a States Rights lawsuit which will go all the way to the Supreme Court and, in all likelyhood, get the Fed’s jurisdiction over MJ regulation, sale & distribution thrown out completely!
You who keep talking about how “it’ll still be a federal crime” are obviously way too stoned to be paying attention to the long game at work here.
(Pro-tip: Politics is chess not checkers. Pay attention to what’s going on three or four moves out, kids!))
I still think that this is not a good idea! The laws should be backed by good science, not reefer madness myths and blood testing people kills it for me.
What about patients like myself who have not only been through the court system, but have had their names published in newspapers? I did not intend to go public with my case until the “police report” was published about my case by the Omak Chronicle! So now all the cops know my family. Also, in my case 4 other families names were included by the jerk who turned us in for a cash reward. None of them are criminals, yet will be forever linked to my case now. Okanogan county has less than 50,000 people in the entire county. Now that they know we are medical cannabis patients, what’s to stop them from pulling us over?
“I saw you weaving in traffic…” will be all the probable cause needed, even if we weren’t weaving.
I stand behind our nation’s police forces, but I would be a fool to say that all or even most police obey all the rules when it comes to arresting cannabis users. In fact, EVERY single cop I’ve talked to out there is against prohibition, especially for medical use. However, they are still just following orders from their superiors. Even the lead detective on my case said he “has to follow the rules as issued by the county prosecutors”!
And there is a difference between how the medical cannabis laws are enforced in Eastern WA as opposed to Western WA. This sounds like a good deal for Seattle, not the entire state.
Seriously…what incentive is there for our legislature to pass this? Our governor already told the world that she won’t put state workers at risk, even for medical uses! And she’s a democrat. If we elect a republican, do you honestly think this will even see the light of day?
I think you are dreaming If you think that this initiative will end the drug war and stop arrests on non-violent cannabis users and end the violence in Mexico.
It is illegal now to drive while high. This wouldn’t change that. Would it?
@57 – it is currently illegal to drive while impaired. I-502 would make it illegal to drive with a certain level of THC in your system, even if you are not impaired in any way. For those under 21, merely being in the presence of marijuana smoke could get you a DUI.
@58: It is very unlikely that secondhand smoke will produce a detectable level of THC in the blood. Even if the legal threshold is 0, the detection limit of most assays is 0.1-0.5 ng/ml.
No, you are completely wrong. They still need to show impairment in order to call for a blood test in the first place. (And to not have the case thrown out of court as well) So quit lying.
Better yet, Patients Against, show me one case where a person has been arrested in WA state for a MJ DUI, scored 5 ng/ml or higher in a blood test AND still got off without being charged.
One single legal case, that’s all I ask.
Cuz if you can’t provide ANY actual real-world evidence that the current practice of law is LESS restrictive than that proposed, then… well, you’re a clueless ass, Patients Against, simple as that.
And you need to STFU already.
@Tim Crowley – the statement you quoted is 100% accurate. Even Alison Holcomb concedes that patients concerns are “understandable” and Dominic Holden admits that patients are “right.” That is why there are literally HUNDREDS of us standing united in opposition to I-502. We have doctors, lawyers, respected activists and well known patient advocates in our ranks. How can you say we are lying when we provide 8-10 times the scientific, legal and real world references than NAW gives? THEY’RE the ones who need to convince people to vote ‘yes’ – yet our opposition campaign is spending all the time educating voters.
(PRO TIP: Dismissing us as “clueless asses” isn’t going to make us any less educated on this topic. It just makes you look like, well, a clueless ass.)
Are we seeing a problem with stoned driving currently? If not, then what is the need for more regulation? Cannabis is way different than alcohol in the way it affects our behavior and decision making skills. Alcohol tends to cause people to make bad decisions regarding personal safety. Someone who just smoked a fat jay may feel more inclined to stay put until they feel ok to drive. I think this is one reason why we don’t see a problem currently. Some people have argued that setting a limit actually suggests that it is ok to drive under the influence. That was one of the points of contention in Colorado when they tried to pass this same thing there. Also, there is another initiative gathering signatures as well. I hope all the people who are signing 502 are signing 505 as well.
The question you have to ask yourself is: will this law put more people in jail, create more felony records for more otherwise law-abiding citizens, and exacerbate racial and class enforcement disparities (Dominic, come on, “probable cause” for law enforcement often means (a) the racial profile of its occupants and (b) what kind of shape the care is in, so economic class), or will it do the opposite? To me, it looks like the former, and no amount of long term “chess strategy” can excuse putting more folks in the penal-industrial complex. No one should be sacrificed because market testing indicates that the average voter is desperately in need of more and better information. How is it okay to justify a law that caters to ignorance and fear? The answer is more and better organizing and education, not pushing a horrendous law in the name of grand strategy.
“it is currently illegal to drive while impaired. I-502 would make it illegal to drive with a certain level of THC in your system, even if you are not impaired in any way”
“No, you are completely wrong. They still need to show impairment in order to call for a blood test in the first place. (And to not have the case thrown out of court as well) So quit lying.
Better yet, Patients Against, show me one case where a person has been arrested in WA state for a MJ DUI, scored 5 ng/ml or higher in a blood test AND still got off without being charged.
One single legal case, that’s all I ask.
Cuz if you can’t provide ANY actual real-world evidence that the current practice of law is LESS restrictive than that proposed, then… well, you’re a clueless ass, Patients Against, simple as that.
And you need to STFU already.”
Damn, put your money where your ignorant mouth is and I’ll be happy to take make the bet. Anyone with any decent attorney can beat these cases, and have regularly. Would you wager $100 per case for every case I can present you with? Put up or shut up. The ball is in your court now. Will you take the bet or crawl back under your rock.
Put your money up and I’m there! Ignorance, posted publicly, should have a cost. Are you willing to pay it? You must be a cop….only a cop would make a statement THAT stupid.
The bet is there…..take is or shut up.
Steve Sarich
@49 Ye Doth Protest Too Much: The point of #47 is that people can already be charged under current law, so the per se DUIC statute did not need to be included in I-502. NAW could have simply addressed this concern through educating the public. See RCW 46.61.502: < http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?… >
@51 – Yes, the death toll in Mexico is tragic. That won’t change until drug policy changes at a national, and even international level. Yes, it will require the states to legalize first, in order to pressure the feds to change their position. But, this is not our current topic of discussion, so can we stay on topic?
@51 (Ye Doth Protest Too Much) & 55 (Timrrr): The attitude of these two posts suggest that the flaws of I-502 should be overlooked for a “perceived” greater good. In other words, you are willing to sacrifice the freedoms of fellow Americans as collateral damage, for political gain.
You both also seem to buy into the belief that I-502 is the “only” chance, and this simply is not true. You could just as easily support I-505 or help Sensible Washington swell their volunteer ranks and their bank account for an initiative run in 2012.
I don’t like your chess board Timrr, and I certainly don’t want to be your pawn.
@62 – good point, and it is interesting how the DUI subject was pretty much a non-issue over all the years we have had legal MMJ (since 1998)
@63 – Right on! You are singing my song. In fact I have even written the same message directly to Alison Holcomb (of course, she doesn’t listen to me).
This is one of the first legalize/tax/regulate initiatives ever. As such, it is extremely important that it be written correctly the first time. This bill could set a precedent for other states to follow. Do Washington voters really want to be the ones that screwed it up for everybody else?
The flaws of this initiative are too significant to be considered “negligible”. Re-criminalizing MMJ patients is deplorable. A felony charge for > 28 grams is unwarranted. The best way to deter an illegal black market is to deflate the price of cannabis, allowing home grows would help with this, but the taxation levels proposed in I-502 keep prices artificially high at the final point of purchase, cannabis will remain a lucrative crop for illegal sales.
The duty of all cannabis activists is to educate the general public. I concur with your assessment that I-502 was written to kowtow to a fearful and misinformed voting public. We all have to face the reality that we simply “aren’t there yet”, and subverting the mission of ending prohibition by adding more prohibition is the wrong approach.
We’d be lucky for any legalization bill to pass in 2012, if one does, it will be by a slim margin. The only way to ensure the success of legalization is to continue educating, friends, neighbors, family members. We have to reach a boiling point on prohibition to the point that we are much like the Occupy movement is now: “Free The Leaf!”.
One more consideration to ad to this discussion… So far, most of the talk has been about smoking marijuana, as is often the case with almost all media portrayals concerning pot.
The reality is that THC and CBD concentration levels can be substantially higher through ingesting the raw plant by eating, juicing, tinctures, or medibles; all without the effect of a “high” or impairment associated with smoking.
I contacted NAW as soon as I found out about the DUI provision, and showed them the flaws and requested they change that portion of their initiative. They refused and deleted my comments.
For those of you who think anyone is high after a few hits off a joint, let me educate you about something called “titration of medication”. It’s a term that means you start off with a small amount of medication and slowly build up the dose as you build up a “tolerance”. This works with cannabis, as is noted in a number of studies pointed out in this comment section as well as when NAW first announced their intent. When you develop a tolerance to a medication, it means you can take a higher dose without a lot of those impairing effects.
When a cannabis patient builds a tolerance, they have much higher active levels of THC in the bloodstream, for much longer periods of time (can you say constant?), especially when they ingest it instead of smoking. None of the studies that NAW uses have identified patients who ingest cannabis AT MUCH HIGHER DOSES than one would ever get by smoking.
It’s no wonder patients are so concerned! They would literally never be legal to drive in the state again, as long as they continued with edibles, and probably not even if they only smoked. How can criminalizing driving for the sick, dying and disabled be a good thing? Who needs to get to the doctor the most? We don’t all live in the city, and some of us are too weak for the bus.
I served my country, so did my children. I worked in medicine until I was too disabled to do so. All my adult life has been spent serving others, and this is how I get treated in the end? You really think it’s okay to make me a criminal cuz I want to drive while NOT impaired, cuz I take my meds just like the guy who just pulled out of the Rite-Aid, but it’s okay for him cuz it’s from big pharma? Who’s the idiot whiners here?
@61* & 64:
Still waiting to see that one example provided from the case law. If you’ve got it, flaunt it! I’d love to be proven wrong.
@63:
You really think there would be more arrests if MJ were legal??? Cuz that’s what you just said. (You must be even higher than me–and I smoke a gang of weed every day!)
(*And sorry, Patients-etc: last name’s not “Crowley” — not even close!)
72 must work for NAW. The principle is very simple. Currently if you are arrested for DUI because a cop “thinks” you are impaired, he actually has to somehow present evidence of the impairment. They are already charging patients with increasing numbers of DUI’s. Typically it’s because many cops refuse to believe that there actually is a medical cannabis law and if they catch a patient with medicine, they’ll throw any violation they can at them. But, unless a patient doesn’t get any legal help, or the patient is naive enough to take a plea bargain, these case are thrown out or never make it to court.
Under I-502, the cop doesn’t need to prove impairment. He simply pulls you over, says you “smell like pot”, arrests you, impounds your vehicle, takes you to the nearest hospital and takes your blood. If you are a patient you will test at over 5 ng/ml. That’s all the proof they will need to show impairment. A patient may not have smoked for two days, but will still automatically be convicted of a DUI based on this heinous new legislation.
So the answer to your question is…..yes, there WILL be more arrests if MJ is “legal”. Most of them will be patients, but anyone under 21 better never smoke. ANY THC in their system will land them a DUI. They don’t have to be impaired in the slightest, they are automatically guilty under I-502. Is that really anyone’s idea of “legalization”?
So it’s a slap on the hand if you’re caught with a joint right now and you’re not a patient. Not too many people getting arrested for that in Seattle. But pass this bill, and get caught with THC in your system and you WILL be going down on a DUI….which will cost you a lot more grief than getting caught with that joint.
Holcomb was a defense attorney. She knows this. This is why their site FAQ’s that talks about how the law will effect MMJ patients conveniently forgets to mention the DUI section of the bill and how it will negatively effect patients….especially those under 21. They have no exemption from the 0 ng/ml limit. Under this law, if you’re a medical cannabis patient you’ll only have two options to stay out of jail. You can quit driving or quit using your medication.
Anyone who thinks this law is going to make them safer MUST be smoking “a gang of weed every day”.
“The reality is that THC and CBD concentration levels can be substantially higher through ingesting the raw plant by eating, juicing, tinctures, or medibles; all without the effect of a “high” or impairment associated with smoking.”
What the fuck sort of idiot are you? It’s a very similar effect.
There are too many variables to consider, as all the science has shown, for NAW to have included a DUIC standard in this bill. An initiative written devoid of science has no legitimate excuse to be written into law.
The general public does not know all the little nuances behind the discrepancies we allude to in this thread. They are in a “Legalization?, Yes/No” mind set. It is the duty of both the press and activists to continue educational efforts and recruit people to fight against prohibition.
Political hit pieces, such as what Dominic Holden has written here, is derelict of duty of 1st Amendment obligations for honest reporting, this can only be considered an opinion piece, and his personal bias is clear.
If I-502 actually makes the ballot, we risk setting the entire legalization movement back by at least a couple years. This is why it has to be defeated before collecting enough signatures.
The general public does not understand the nuance of our argument. I-502 will not win in 2012 without the support of the entire cannabis community. For this reason, NAW should scrap their admittedly flawed bill and start over.
NAW should reach out to opposing viewpoints within the legalization community and be prepared to make concessions. This movement is bigger than any one of us. This should never be about egos, and should always serve the greater good.
I think we all agree (on this thread anyway) that prohibition on cannabis needs to end. Regardless of what side any of us are on in this particular debate, we need to recognize the progress we have already made: the fact that we are talking about “how to legalize”, is evidence of forward progress from “should we legalize?”
@5 – You may consider me a “Sensible Washington Troll”, but let me say this – what NAW is attempting to do has never been done before. Federal preemption/interference will happen, then what?
The SW approach is modeled after I-61, which Washington voters approved to repeal prohibition on alcohol in 1932, one year prior to the ratification of the 21st Amendment. SW follows a model that has been historically proven to work.
Depending on how NAW plays their cards, Sensible Washington may become the only saving grace.
JUST THE FACTS MAAM. JUST THE FACTS.
“Scientific evidence on cannabis and driving is not yet sufficient to permit the selection of a numerical enforceable THC limit with the same level of confidence as for alcohol.” Grotenherman et. al. “Developing Science-Based Per Se Limits For Driving Under The Influence of Cannabis”
“Substantial whole blood THC concentrations persist multiple days after drug discontinuation in heavy chronic cannabis users.”
Karschner et. al. “Do Delta-9 THC Concentrations Indicate Recent Use in Chronic Cannabis Users?”
“It is not possible to conclude anything about a driver’s impairment on the basis of his/her plasma concentrations.” U.S. Department of Transportation “Marijuana and Actual Driving Performance: Effects of THC on Driving Perfomance”
JUST THE FACTS MAAM. JUST THE FACTS.
@ 73: (sigh) You tire me, Troy. You have some wonderful theories conjured up in your head, but can’t seem to come up with any actual… you know, facts to back them up. So here’s a couple for you:
1) No, I don’t work for NAW. I haven’t even given them any money or support yet. (Your assumptions here, unsurprisingly, lack any & all evidence it would seem.) But on a brighter note: thank you, Troy! You’ve shown me that I really should be supporting them–just to counteract the effects of any foolish people out there like you!
2) Since math & command of the facts seem to not be the stoner strong suit here (said the one stoner, it seems, who can still do the math) I’ll provide a little case in point. You wrote:
Here are the actual facts:
In 2007 there were 16,473 MJ arrests in Washington State, 14,766 of which were for possession alone. In the same year there was a grand total of 41,413 DUI arrests in the state.*
That means there would need to be a 40% increase in the number of DUI arrests in Washington state–and all of them MJ only DUIs–before it even came close to equaling the number of people who are ALREADY going to jail for MJ prohibition. Got that?
And, lest you forget, in 2010 because of budget cutbacks the WA State Patrol–who account for 49% of the current DUI arrests in this state–had their traffic patrol staffing reduced by 37 cops as well. (Yes, 37 less cops to make almost double the arrests. Boy! they’re really going to have to work hard to get those numbers you’re predicting, Troy!)
So if you still maintain that “there WILL be more arrests if MJ is legal” in the light of those numbers, I will continue to maintain that you are an idiot, dreaming your stoner dreams of how the world “must work”, but without a shred of evidence about how it actually does.
*and see what I did there, Troy: I cited a fact AND referenced it to its source (http://www.drugscience.org) so you could look it up yourself and make sure I’m not just talking out my stoned ass. Citing facts–it’s a lot of fun! All the kids are doing it! You should try it some time!!!
And I still wait for that one example from case law:
(And I expect I will be for quite a while)
@78 – you will never find “case law” involving a person getting charges dismissed. By default, that means there is no “case” and therefore, no “case law.”
Now that we’ve shown that 502 would be a disaster from a patient/DUI standpoint. Let’s poke a pin in their biggest lie. They are selling this as a bill that will deflate the market for black market marijuana. They have stated that prices will be high enough to not encourage more use, but low enough to discourage competition from the black market. This is NAW magic solution to ending the war on drugs by making it no longer profitable for the drug dealers.
Just for the sake of argument, let’s assume that the licensed producer of the cannabis is charging the processor or distributor $150 per ounce ($2400 per pound)
This certainly seems within reason once you start calculating in the additional licensing fees, security expenses, and in sundry expenses that are still to be worked out.
Wholesale price of cannabis to the processor/distributor $150.00
25% state liquor tax $ 37.50
Total cost to the processor/distributor $187.50
25% state liquor tax from processor to retailer $46.88
Total cost to the retailer $234.38
25% state liquor tax from retailer to customer $58.59
Subtotal to customer $292.96
9.5% state & local sales tax $27.83
Total price of one ounce to customer $320.79
OOOOOOOOPS! ALMOST FORGOT!….the processor/distributor and the retailer all need to pay their bills too. Let’s pick a reasonable mark-up…..not too high, but hopefully enough to keep them in business. Let’s plug in a 40% margin for the processor/distributor and 40% for the retailer and then re-run these numbers.
Wholesale price of cannabis to the processor/distributor $150.00
25% state liquor tax $ 37.50
Total cost to the processor/distributor $187.50
40% mark-up for the processor/distributor 75.00
25% state liquor tax from processor to retailer $65.63
Total cost to the retailer $328.13
40% mark-up for the retailer $131.25
__________________________________________________________________
$459.38
25% state liquor tax from retailer to customer $114.85
Subtotal to customer $574.22
9.5% state & local sales tax $54.55
Total price of one ounce to customer $628.77
The taxes listed are all quoted in the law. You can argue about the $150 cost from the grower, but I don’t see it dripping much below that with all the regulatory costs involved, as well as having to have all medication, tested and graded by a licensed state lab. Growers may actually have to sell at a higher price.
You can argue that the 40% margin is too high, but I can’t see anyone opening a new business, especially one that is so heavily taxed and regulated, just to make less money on selling it than the state is making by taxing it. Even Walmart takes more than a 40% margin. And remember, these are not patient Collectives….these are retail pot dealers.
All the other figures are theirs.
I can see every street dealer in town immediately going out gathering signatures for I-502 once they find out what the state stores will be charging! Who in their right mind is going to buy marijuana at over $600 per ounce? This would be the greatest present that street dealers could ever get from the state government. They can easily up their prices by more than 50% and still totally undercut the licensed state stores…and likely provide better quality cannabis.
Is this really what we want? The state won’t collect their outrageous taxes because no one will pay the ridiculous prices. The black market will look like Chicago during prohibition, and law enforcement will have to “crack down” on the “rampant illegal sale of marijuana”.
Maybe someone from NAW would like to explain where I’m wrong here. I don’t think the numbers lie. Everyone still excited about NAW’s plan for “legalization”? How about if the legislature decides they need to up the taxes in year two? Naw, Gregoire would never up taxes on small business, right?
So if you don’t buy the $600 bag, you’ll be back to dealing with felons, but will only be spending $400 an ounce. Sounds like a real bargain! (If you’re a patient you’ll just be out of luck, but the people at NAW are apparently not too interested in how badly this bill will effect us anyway.)
Did anyone at NAW ever bother to run the numbers on this business model? If so, let’s see them post’em up here! Show me where I’m wrong. I think you owe the public the truth about this initiative. It looks like it will result in exactly the opposite outcome they’re looking to achieve.
Steve Sarich
steve@cannacare.org
I think the hall of legalization league..with Alison Holcomb..John McKay..Rick Steves..Pete Holmes.et al with Wendy and Marvin and wonderdog.. had better take another look at what they’d be pushin. Not everyone gets their paycheck from the blue pages or pot criminal cases and keeps their brain in the trunk.
This tax and spend model just doesn’t pencil out. What we need is a tea party model that recognizes that profitability for investors and good deals for consumers is required to actually allow the golden goose to lay a golden egg.
What they want is Comrade Santa to start growing out of the goodness of his heart or have some fool run on a hamster wheel until he ruins his credit.Something has to drive a profitable economic formua, or else the growers will have to move to red states like all the other manufacturers in Washington State.
This is the price we pay for having no real tea party base in the legislature.The model is not wanted at all let alone be protected.Then again the pitiful republicans in this state haven’t been able to protect any other business concepts with their pitiful limited tent relegated to gathering signatures for initiatives that make the R’s go ahhh.
We should be selling whatever we can as much as we can. This liberal area should be thriving with that kind of model. Unfortunately this is where the liberal base gets fucked because the Union backed police and criminal justice system has a hold on Olympia.
The fact is the liberal mecca is being fucked with the union’s dicks and they have either accepted that and reached for the KY or they have trouble concentrating on reality.
The fact may also be that there really isn’t a liberal base in Seattle after all and there is only a union grabass base,with a smattering of gays and hippies looking for free coffee and bagels and holding a sign wearing a tarp is better than punchin a clock for the establishment.
Hey hippies. Get yer brains outta the trunk and accept the fact that only the gays can get govement jobs in the blue pages,cuz yons can’t pass a whiz test.
The sooner yons can do that and link with the tea partyers the better off Washington State will be, and the less KY yon’s will havta purchase and the fewer union dick’s you’l have penetratin.
I think the hall of legalization league..with Alison Holcomb..John McKay..Rick Steves..Pete Holmes.et al with Wendy and Marvin and wonderdog.. had better take another look at what they’d be pushin. Not everyone gets their paycheck from the blue pages or pot criminal cases and keeps their brain in the trunk.
This tax and spend model just doesn’t pencil out. What we need is a tea party model that recognizes that profitability for investors and good deals for consumers is required to actually allow the golden goose to lay a golden egg.
What they want is Comrade Santa to start growing out of the goodness of his heart or have some fool run on a hamster wheel until he ruins his credit. Something has to drive a profitable economic formula, or else the growers will have to move to red states like all the other manufacturers in Washington State.
This is the price we pay for having no real tea party base in the legislature. The model is not wanted at all let alone be protected. Then again the pitiful republicans in this state haven’t been able to protect any other business concepts with their pitiful limited tent relegated to gathering signatures for initiatives that make the R’s go ahhh.
We should be selling whatever we can as much as we can. This liberal area should be thriving with that kind of model. Unfortunately this is where the liberal base gets fucked because the Union backed police and criminal justice system has a hold on Olympia.
The fact is the liberal Mecca is being fucked with the union’s dicks and they have either accepted that and reached for the KY or they have trouble concentrating on reality.
The fact may also be that there really isn’t a liberal base in Seattle after all and there is only a union grabass base, with a smattering of gays and hippies looking for free coffee and bagels and holding a sign wearing a tarp is better than punchin a clock for the establishment.
Hey hippies. Get yer brains outta the trunk and accept the fact that only the gays can get govement jobs in the blue pages,cuz yons can’t pass a whiz test.
The sooner yons can do that and link with the tea partyers the better off Washington State will be, and the less KY yon’s will havta purchase and the fewer union dick’s you’ll have a penetratin.
@77 Timrrr: What facts would you like from me to support my comments?
You seem to be writing to me, but responding to Steve Sarich’s comments. Would you call that stoner error?
This thread has already cost me valuable time, that I should be spending doing more important things. If you would like me to back any of my comments, please specify.
Others have provided facts, that you seem to ignore. Why should I waste more time trying to convince you of anything?
You cite me a “fool”, yet you are foolish enough to admit in writing (#72) to a federally illegal crime: “and I smoke a gang of weed every day”…
For the record, I am not a stoner, but feel free to berate others to stroke your own ego. There is no prohibition on mental masturbation that I’m aware of. If being a troll is what gets you off, more power to ya – I’m done wasting my time on you.
Eve Lentz
Here are my comments to a conversation on the Patients Against New Approach Washington FB page!
Anthony Martinelli
Some of you may want to get in on this: http://www.facebook.com/acluwa/posts/221…
How can they( NAW) state, on their fact sheet, that “”Science supports a 5ng/ml THC limit? I did not see the evidence of that science! What I saw, that they were using , came out in 2005. SIX YEARS AGO! Oh, I forgot, ONE STUDY to base it on! I have never been a name caller, but I sure wish I could be, right now! Why do you keep throwing up your smoke and mirrors tactics and think people will be stupid enough to follow like sheep! Some will, but the more intelligent of us will fight this initiative until the age and DUIC limits are removed or the initiative dies. You should wait until proper studies are done if you still want to shove that crap down our throats, just and stop calling it a legalization initiative, when it criminalizes more than it legalizes.
After spending several hours reading the 49 pages of Developing Science-Based Per Se Limits for Driving under the influence of cannabis (DUIC) (2005) that we were directed to: http://www.canorml.org/healthfacts/DUICr… I found several interesting facts.
The first, the authors of the study, met and talked to each other in 2004, although the study didn’t come out until 2005.
The second, the dates of the references cited in the report were for years: 1969, 1973, 1974, 1976, 1977,1981,1982,1983, 1985, 1986, 1987, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, respectively. The majority of the studies were for before 2000. Two of the references, the dates of the study were from 1979-2003 and one from 1977-2001. Almost all were foreign studies.
The Third, advice and conclusions of the DUIC Report, dated Sept. 2005, said: “Unfortunately, the evidence from epidemiological studies on cannabis and accident risk is still much less conclusive than for alcohol and, alone, is insufficient for adopting a Science-based legal limit for THC in the blood.” (Page 16)
The fourth,in the study to compare the incidences of traffic injury-related hospitalization among THC users and non-drug users “All cohort members completed baseline questionnaires about traffic injury-related hospitilization and health-relavant habits, including cannabis use, between 1979 to 1985. (page 18, DUIC Report (2005)
The fifth, “In conclusion, the results of culpability studies are still inconsistent and statistically too weak to justify selection of a numerical THC limit. (page 20)
The sixth, “on road” studies were performed between 1969 and 2000. (page 21, DUIC report (2005) )
The seventh, the studies researching “Emergency Response” of persons thought to be “impaired” were conducted in 1971, 1973 and 1981, Respectively! (Page 23, DUIC Report (2005) )
The eighth, in Appendix A, which is the Overview of State DUIC Laws in the U.S., Washington State is not even included, and was last updated in March 2005. (Appendix A, DUIC report, (2005) )
Those are the facts that I read and quoted from the study that NAW is basing their THC driving limits on. One study, they show figures of how many traffic deaths, per year, alcohol causes. My question is, where is the study of how many traffic deaths, per year, THC intoxication causes? The second question is, why would anyone base information that is important to the voters that will be voting in 2012, on information from one report that was created in 2004, using data mostly from 1969 to 2000? Only a few were after 2000. 1969 is 42 years ago! Why are they using such dated material? Surely, after all of these years, and with all of the controls and laws in place to catch impaired drivers, where is all of the real evidence that we need a THC limit?
http://www.facebook.com/PatientsAgainstN…
Hi Eve,
You might want to go to the NAW website. They have an FAQ for medical marijuana patients explaining how they will be “protected” under 502. I guess someone forgot to put in the “WARNING” about the DUI sections of the initiative and how they can all be charged under 502. OOOOPS….must have slipped their minds. I’m sure they wouldn’t have left that out on purpose, right?
Sorta like Dominic Holden’s ethical lapse in failing to disclose to readers that he used to for Alison Holcomb at the ACLU when he wrote this puff piece supporting her legislation. Sorry, but not disclosing his relationship with Holcomb is shady, at best.
Wow! The backers and supporter’s of “New Approach Washington” have gotten really quiet all of a sudden. If you think for a moment that patients will just go away, let alone support your attack on us, GOOD FRIGGIN LUCK! You just awakened this community. These questions won’t be going away in the press and you’d better have some real answers.
Using your little “tool”, Dominic, will not help you. He may represent the Stranger, but they have no clout in real scheme of things. Like the “big names” they have supporting NAW, the Stranger is just one more “tool” that will discredit themselves on this issue that will eventually go down in flames.
Try to throw us patients under the bus to get your legislation passed and see how far that gets you.
I haven’t noticed any new organizations popping up like “Patients in Support of 502”. Get the message…we DON’T support 502 and we’ll work actively against it. Whether patients support legalization or not, they will NOT support YOUR version of “legalization” that criminalizes the patients of this state.
Every set-back we’ve had on medical marijuana legislation in this state has come from the Washington ACLU and Alison Holcomb. Quit “helping” us….NOW! We will fight back to protect our rights, even if it’s the ACLU that is the organization trying to take them from us.
Every patient should be contacting the national ACLU and be asking them why they are leading the fight to take away the rights of patients in this state.
I’ll post a of list of their management and suporters on this site as well as our site. The patients organization opposing 502 should do the same. The ACLU has built their reputation, and contributions, based on supporting civil rights in this country. The ACLU of Washington has done nothing but try to deny our rights in this state.
Steve
It IS a valid concern that such a low quantity needs to be found in the blood to be punished. As we all know, police pre-judge people on appearances alone and are more likely to decide that a driver is worthy of investigation if they are black, alternative-looking (read “dreadlocks”, tattoos etc), or drive a beat-up or artsy vehicle. Therefore, we cannot assume that police will always wait until this sort of driver is clearly impaired in order to decide that they’ve got a reason to pull them over.
I’ve been pulled over before while driving a friend’s very alternative car just because one of the two lights which illuminates the rear license plate was burned out! Police are clearly biased and invent reasons to torment those they can’t understand.
Steve @ 85 – You’re a blowhard. And no one is talking here anymore because Tim won with @77 All the reasonable people left so you, the Tea Party douche, Eve and Troy can be histrionic at each other.
@8 – my thoughts exactly.
@88 NaFun – No, people aren’t using this thread anymore because the conversation has moved < http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/high_… >