Comments
Please wait...
Comments are closed.
Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.
Editors' Picks
is a proud member of the
media network
media network
All contents © Index Newspapers LLC
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
@3 Don't bother, I'm wagering that most of them probably don't vote anyway. I'd vote ... if I cared about the issue one way or the other ... I simply just don't care about it enough.
It would work the same way current DUI testing works. First the officer makes you touch your nose while walking on a line and reciting the alphabet backwards, and if you screw that up, they ask you if you'll allow a physical test. For THC, they can do that down at the station an hour or two after they pull you over.
And yet medical marijuana dispensaries in various states continue to operate without federal interference. Weird.
The legal team for this initiative probably did a lot better in 10th grade civics than you or I did. It's fun to pretend they're all too baked to remember The Constitution, but I bet they've got an appellate roadmap that runs through places you've never heard of.
No, I'm afraid scattered raids are not quite the same thing as "destroying dispensaries all over the country," and yes, medical marijuana dispensaries in various states continue to operate without federal interference.
Threatening prosecution is simply not the same thing as prosecuting.
The Feds aren't stupid; they're not going to play the part the way you've written it for them in the script for Peaceful Sick People Vs. The Jackbooted Thugs.
Pro-legalization forces need to get these numbers out there. In tough economic times like these, you don't needlessly fuck with people's livelihoods. That's a message that will resonate with pretty much everyone who doesn't work in a competing industry.
And, yes, of course, threatening prosecution isn't the same as prosecution. Obviously. But it's also like saying, "Don't complain that the cop threatened to arrest you for not doing anything wrong. At least he didn't arrest you!"
Needless to say (to anyone who's not an apologist for authoritarianism), the threat of prosecution is a powerful tool for preventing behavior the government disapproves of.
And in this case, the government disapproves of providing marijuana to sick and dying people who need it. Are you actually defending them? I mean, we know it's not YOUR livelihood that's being destroyed and it's not YOUR medicine that's being denied to you. But a little bit of compassion goes a long way.
Moreover, read the initiative before signing. It totally destroys the medical mj law; no one using medical mj will be allowed to drive.
Sure, completely legal.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wcikjq02o…
Yes, the Feds obviously wish the medical marijuana dispensaries would go away. And yes, they're keeping some pressure on, to let medical marijuana distributors know they can't relax and expand and franchise and generally operate without worrying about government interference.
And yet they're still operating.
The threat of prosecution is not preventing the open distribution of medical marijuana.
The Feds aren't following the script you've written for them. They know just as well as you do that if there were a massive national push to crack down and throw thousands of terminal cancer patients in jail, medical marijuana would be legal at the federal level within a matter of weeks.
Passing local and state laws does, objectively, make a very real difference. Federal law does not prevent local and state laws from having an effect, even when it supersedes them.
It's not that simple Westlake. It would be 2 years before the Legislature can remove the provision, in which case trying to change it is going to be a huge challenge, and in the meantime a huge amount of mostly patients will be innocently prosecuted for unimpaired DUIDs that will haunt their life in a number of ways.
Individuals really need to look further into this initiative and checkout this website: http://www.patientsagainsti502.org/
How would "a huge number of mostly patients" fail the initial roadside exam? You know, the one the police have to administer before they can ask for a blood test?
I can see how some patients with advanced illness might be so impaired by their symptoms that they wouldn't be able to pass a roadside test, but those patients probably shouldn't be driving in the first place, no?
Are you under the impression that there will be a mandatory THC blood test for every single driver the police pull over? If so, you can rest easy-- the police currently need to observe some evidence of impairment before they can ask a driver for a breathalyzer test (which can be refused, though this usually means a trip down to the station). None of this would be any different for a THC blood test.
Without the help of states, counties, and municipalities they have no power.
Lots and lots and lots of Feds. The Feds are the biggest employer in the country, by far! And if you don't have enough DEA Feds for your crackdown, you could use lots of other kinds of Feds, if you were so inclined.
Sure, you could have even more cracker-downers if the local and state authorities were on board, but manpower is definitely not the reason that The Feds haven't shut down every single State-legal medical marijuana distributor in America. Or even a significant fraction of them.
So your hand-wringing and worry-warting over the new provisions is both (1) kind of ridiculous, (2) completely ignorant, and (3) very, very misplaced.
(Pro-tip: There's NO legal threshold right now -- any amount of THC in your bloodstream, even if prescribed, is grounds for a DUI under the current law as it now stands. It's just a question of what, when & on whom they choose to enforce it.)
It'll take at least those two years before the States Rights case can make it all the way to the Supreme Court anyway, so you aren't going to see many prosecutors wasting valuable resources on a lot of driving while stoned cases while the law's status remains in limbo.
They may be prosecutors, but they aren't idiots.
And that's after your advocacy group finds just the right test case... which the Feds will have in mind, too, when they're planning who to bust, and where, and how.
Can anyone show me in the initiative where it says it would not continue to be “distribution”, a felony, to pass a joint or a pipe to a friend? If not how is this legalization?
In order for your marijuana to be legal, the package will be required to have a state tax stamp on it. Where are you going to find the packaging when in order for the grower, distributor, or seller to be legal they must give their finger prints, along with all of their employees’ finger prints, to the state for an FBI background check, fill out forms detailing their intent to commit a federal crime, then I-502 has a requirement that state officials cooperate with federal law enforcement? Does this mean they need to turn that paperwork over to the feds? Ya sure, you betcha! Even if these sales provisions did not violate the supremacy clause of the US constitution, how many people are going to ask the state to have the federal government put them in jail? If you believe marijuana should be legal for adults and you support I-502, are willing to do what it takes to be part of the manufacturing process knowing you are turning yourself in to the state for violation of a federal law?
As for the DUI let’s get real clear. Currently a law enforcement officer has to show impairment for any drug EXCEPT alcohol. In the case of alcohol the officer simply has to have a reasonable belief that you are above the limit. Smell of alcohol, not impaired is all that is needed in order to demand that you take a breath test. This law would make it legal for a police officer to take any driver at any time for a blood test, not based on impairment, but simply because the officer believed a person had smoked in the recent past. This could be because the officer “believed” they smelled burnt marijuana or since the symptoms of marijuana impairment are the same as having allergies, red water eyes, driving with the window open or actually having allergies would constitute reasonable suspicion to have the driver taken for a blood test. The worst part is the way I-502 treats our children. Few people believe minors should have access to marijuana, but the zero tolerance for minors while driving, allows for the arrest of minors whose only contact with marijuana was as second hand smoke. This could be because they were taking care of a medical patient or because they left a party as soon as they smelled marijuana smoke. They would never have had to consume any marijuana intentionally to be guilty of DUI.
Here is a quote often attributed to the president credited with starting the war on drugs, but probably belonging to the president on a five dollar bill.
You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time.
In regards to I-502 where do you fit in that equation?
That an idea can be profitable enough for some wealthy people that they are willing to put up money to get it made a law does not make it a good idea and just because someone tells you something does not make it the truth. Do not take my word for this or Ms. Holcomb’s, take the time to read I-502, it is just a continuation of our current policies, more arrests, more destroyed lives, more money for those invested in the prison industrial complex. There is another initiative out there I-505. It is the first step in ending the war on drugs, you should read it too.
BTW - Cannabis has been used as a legitimate medicine for thousands of years, before it was declared "not a medicine". Some people cannot take prescription drugs currently available to them. Cannabis literally saves lives.
To assert that medical marijuana is just a legal way for people to "get high" is to say that you know nothing of the subject, please educate yourself before you vote from "opinion".
And the fact remains that dispensaries are being destroyed and mm users are being forced to find pot from less reliable safe sources.
Again, it seems to me that brushing away this fact is like responding to "driving while black" arrests with, "Lots, even most black drivers aren't getting pulled over, so, therefore, the police aren't the villains you're portraying them as."
I suspect we both support the initiative, so, really, I'm not even sure what we're arguing over.
face palm
This bill only removes state sanctions against it.
Nullification is a concept that was held mostly prior to the Civil War in the United States. It is still hinted at by the Tea Party in the US today.
If you don't know what nullification is, read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullificati…)
Current legal amount of THC per milliliter of blood allowed while operating a vehicle: 0.0 nanograms
Under I-502: 5.0 nanograms
If you can't tell which one is better--a limit of zero nanograms or of five--go take a remedial math class and then come back. (We can talk again after you've graduated to Basic Number Theory 101.)
The current RCW makes NO MENTION of a THC blood limit. It merely says one cannot be "under the influence or affected by" drugs or alcohol. This puts the burden of proof on police and prosecutors, who must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a driver is impaired.
Under I-502, police and prosecutors will only need to prove that a person had 5 ng/ml of THC in their blood. Even if they are stone-cold sober, they will be guilty of DUI simply because of the contents of their blood.
If you would like to see an honest analysis from legal experts (or scientists, or national reform groups, or the EXPERT recommendations to elected officials), please visit www.patientsagainsti502.org
I believe you're under the misconception that all cops follow procedures as they're suppose to, when in reality many cops already harass patients very heavily and giving them another method to prosecute them is ridiculous. The cops may have to "show impairment", but in all honestly that's completely subjective - However, under current law an officer must prove impairment for a person to be found guilty, HOWEVER, under I-502's strict liability law if the officer "believes" someone to be impaired (even if they aren't), they test them, and they're above the 5 ng limit...BOOM, instant DUID with absolutely NO defense (which is what strict liability means).
This is absolutely wrong to do and is scientifically faulty (there is no scientific consensus at all, and in fact a group specifically designed to examine this exact issue decided against recommending an identical 5 ng/mL limit because of the lack of consensus http://blogs.westword.com/latestword/201… - another example is how State Rep. Roger Goodman introduced a more lenient 8 ng/mL bill for cannabis not long ago, but revoked it after such heavy backlash and after realizing the science just wasn't there to support it).
Apparently you don't, seeing as you are missing the point.
In reality, the 5ng/ml limit is needed to pull more voters to our side. Let’s face it, given what we have been told for decades about marijuana, people have every right to approach this issue cautiously. This is especially true for parents. You or I cannot blame them. This is ultimately a moral issue that crosses political lines. Cannabis prohibition is a war against the sick, our liberty, minority populations, and the American people in general. Many conservatives, even the farmers who stand to profit most from legalization, will not vote to legalize and regulate marijuana unless it is strictly controlled. The type of strict controls conservatives sympathetic to our cause want include a per se DUI provision. For some of you, I understand that appealing to the more conservative crowds may not seem to be a sufficient justification at first glance for a per se limit, but at least I-502 earmarks money for researching exactly how and how much marijuana impairs driving. This will, at a minimum, create a foundation to jump from in the future should the laws need to be modified after the stigmas associated with marijuana use decrease.
Of course, it will be one percent of $0.00 by the time the feds wipe out the commercial sales scheme. Not to mention, any law enforcement savings seen from less possession charges is going to be completely obliterated by the costs associated with blood testing, convicting and jailing SOBER drivers.