I got goosebumps.

I still don't get that THC blood concentration thing. Pot doesn't metabolize in your system the same way alcohol does. I wouldn't want to expose myself to getting a DUI because I got pulled over and tested positive for a joint I smoked the day or the week before. Is there a good analysis of what's being proposed that you can point me to?

If this passes I will eat my hat. I have never wanted to eat my hat so bad.

Tax Revenue everyone can agree with!

Well, except al-Qaeda who want to keep it a black market that breaks America's budget and destroys our civil liberties.

@2 it's because they can't test the Munchies or how silly you think everything is.

No mention of making baby Jesus cry? I smell lawsuit.

@4 - If this passes, I will eat a whole bag of Doritos in one sitting.

I will sell you those Doritos, @9, at a 50 percent markup plus sales tax.

Munchie trucks of the world unite!

What @2 and @3 said....I'm still pretty frickin concerned about that. I don't drive but once a week, and I haven't been pulled over since 2005, and I desparately want our state to legalize, tax, and regulate marijuana, but I will still vote no on this initiative (and I will tell every friend and acquaintance I have to do the same) because of that clause unless I see something that allays my concerns.

it should be called cannabis not marijuana. botanical accuracy and all. or cannabis, aka marijuana.

If this does end up going before the voters I hope it passes, but I will be very surprised if it does.

@11 - You would torpedo something that is so obviously better than the status quo for something you yourself think is unlikely? WTF is wrong with you?

New Approach is a Bad Approach!! @NaFun- This initiative is not "legalization", it is a way for the government to bleed as much money out of the recreational user as possible. They promote it as legalization because we will be allowed to grow, package, distribute and sell cannabis, What they don't tell you, are the specifics. The average person won't even be allowed to grow a single plant. Patients will still have all the same rights they have now. It will cost $250 to apply for a license to grow. Then after background checks, personal info review and a check to see if you're paying your child support (if you have child support of course), if you pass they will allow you to buy a license for $1,000 annually for each grow op location. Once you are licensed you must meet all the WSLCB's regulations, i.e No outdoor growing, submit samples to 3rd party Labs for purity tests, and any other regulations (that haven't been proposed yet) they deem necessary. This initiative does not allow for industrial hemp. Industrial hemp (<1%TCH) will still be illegal to grow. If anything should be legalized first it should be hemp. This would create a Green Industrial Revolution, thousands of jobs and a myriad of eco-friendly/healthy products. NAW is not educating the public about the benefits of cannabis, they are only perpetuating peoples fear of hippies and pot heads by saying these kind of people need to regulated and carefully controlled so everyone is safe from them.

@Hernandez They now have blood tests and saliva tests that can measure the ACTIVE THC in your body. Urine tests are for THC METABOLITES. They are not the same thing.

@15, there's nothing wrong with me, WTF is wrong with you? If I thought this bill *was* better than the status quo, I would definitely vote for it. I may end up doing just that, but if I do, it will be because someone actually addressed my concerns or explained why my priorities are fucked up instead of just tossing insults at me.

I'm saying it's unlikely *for me* to get ticketed for driving while impaired, but I do not think it's unlikely that the police force will end up abusing the reasonable cause thing and there will be systemic racial injustice in that way, like there is now for drug arrests (ie, black people getting busted way out of proportion to their incidence of use). Is that better? Maybe. Personally, I'd rather be stuck taking the bus than in jail, but there are other problems with this initiative too (see @17), and I'd rather do it right the first time, because once something is law it's harder to change the specifics.

I just haven't seen enough fact-based reporting on this to vote yes on this yet, and my default vote is always "don't change things unless it's for sure going to be a good change".

@2 @3 @11 The initiative defines DUI for pot as a blood concentration of 5ng/ml of THC *only*. It explicitly forbids the gubmint from counting THC's *inactive metabolites* (e.g. carboxy-THC) as DUI. Plasma THC concentrations generally fall below 5 ng/mL less than 3 hours after smoking. So according to current science, under this law, you'd be legal to drive roughly 3 hours after you blaze up.

@17, wrongo about hemp. I-502 redefines "marijuana" as only cannabis with THC concentration greater than 0.3% - the break point for industrial hemp recognized by every state and country. The effect? Hemp decriminalized under WA state law. Now if only Congress would pass the Industrial Hemp Farming Act of 2011 ...

Good grief! If the bill had a few more "bad provisions" wouldn't that still be a great improvement over our current circumstance? We put people in jail for something that most people agree causes less harm than alcohol.