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.
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
And what percentage of your coalition would lose money if marijuana were accessible in an OTC way?
I'll leave the irony of proving our commitment to legal marijuana by killing efforts to legalize it as an aside for now
Do we really want unscientific, unfair, biased laws becoming our standard because we decided to settle for less than legalization? Do we really feel the need to exchange one innocent person incarcerated for another? Is this just? Do these ends really justify the means? Especially when a DUI charge is harsher on someone's record than a minor possession charge? I don't think so.
We need to avoid setting a bad example for the rest of the legalization movement, and institute science-based laws that our citizens respect and abide by.
howdy do ... i am a pig wearing lipstick, they've named me "reform" take ME to the prom.
howdy do ... i am law enforcement here to exchange your old prohibition with a a new updated version - prohibition502. oh.
howdy do ... the DUID will cost you $10,000 and five years probation where I can F you over again and again without cause.
howdy do ... here is your placstic cup. please don't pee on the floor.
After all this struggle, lives ruined by being thrown in jail, and illegal activity around the underground trade during prohibition.....you're going to sell out for cash over conscious. I can't tell if you have deluded yourself, or are just pretending and playing a game for the cash here....but i consider this the ultimate sellout for the cause to finally start the repeal of this damaging prohibition.
I used to think your scene was about helping those in pain, now I just see you are protecting your wallets. Hey! But who cares, amirite!.....Let's just keep filling our jails with people chilling on this instead of a beer at the end of the day.
I don't think the people opposing I-502 support impaired driving...They just don't support innocent people being arrested - for any reason.
And with this statement, Mr. Martinelli, you demonstrate that you do not understand the pharmacokinetics of THC.
THC is stored longer in these people, in their fat tissues. Fat concentration =/= blood concentration. THC is slowly released over time into the bloodstream, at very low concentrations, where it is rapidly metabolized into other cannabinoids. All of the primary, peer-reviewed investigations of THC blood levels that have been discussed on this blog in the last week (including those which you yourself have cited) show that the only time people have whole blood levels of THC in excess of the proposed legal limit is within a couple of hours of smoking.
Look at the data. Don't infer from an abstract, or a summary. It is all there.
Dominic already found that the study they cite actually proves the _opposite_ of the scare tactics they are using.
Those against 502 are just protecting their bank accounts, at the cost of innocent lives being thrown in jail and ruined. Disgusting.
Sorry, Medical Marijuana Activists, Your Study Doesn't Prove that I-502 Will Nab Sober Drivers for DUIs
http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archive…
This is not nothing. This is 10,000 fewer Washington residents seeing a police station because they were caught with marijuana in their possession.
Can you name one patient who was arrested for driving with more than 5ng/ml of active THC in their blood that then got off without a DUID? Just one? If not, what is lost?
To quote Russ Bellville of NORML,
"if your objection to I-502 is some innocent toke-all-day patient who’s unimpaired is going to get a DUID, you should be counseling them to never drive NOW. The standard cops need to take a patient’s blood on suspicion of DUID is exactly the same now as it will be post I-502, so your patients are already taking that risk."
And your severability argument fails because you think we're not aware of it. We are, and are anticipating the feds trying something like that, making for the most epic marijuana court case in decades.
Baby steps, dude. You can't just start running.
Effectively saying that it's "impossible" to determine impaired drivers by any means leads to the assumption that they don't give a shit about innocence or not.
The many supporters of I-502 believe that it will be part of an effort to REDUCE the number of innocent cannabis users. If more people must refrain from self-medicating and driving, so be it.
It's up to you to come up with a more scientific method, I guarantee that we'll sign on to that as well.
Most of the time, if you want to figure out what someone's opinion is, all you have to do is follow the money.
To oppose the ENTIRE legalization bill, with so much official backing behind it and so much zeitgeist momentum because ONE aspect of it isn't perfect right this second is transparently bad strategy. Unless, of course, you've got a profitable monopoly to protect.
Also, the study that I quoted to Dominic was a study showing that individuals can fail the ZERO tolerance policy set in place for individuals who are under 21 (which the study in Dominic's article proves, as 24% of the individuals were above that limit 6 full days after having consumed cannabis, which clearly has nothing to do with impairment - check out a recent testimony from Dr. Gil Mobley who spoke in front of the House Judiciary Committee in favor of protecting patients against Initiative 502's per se DUID law: http://www.patientsagainsti502.org/medic…).
And undead ayn, we're not saying that it's impossible to prove impairment (which is currently our state law - an officer must prove impairment), we're saying that there is no scientific consensus on any particular per se limit, better yet 5 ng/ml, so to take away our legal defense in court for a designated limit decided by a few lawyers and politicians seems unacceptable.
I think you guys need to look at the fact that NORML and most all other reform groups are AGAINST a per se limit VERY heavily...so to argue it's not wrong doesn't make sense.
If you have spent any time fighting for repeal, you would know this is not legalization, and that per se DUID laws are unacceptable - The most prestigious of the cannabis reform movement have been fighting per se DUID laws for years, including NORML, and recently MPP has been waging a campaign against instituting a per se limit in Colorado.
So tell me - where do your efforts towards legalization stand in comparison of those that have been fighting for this for years, some even decades? And what credibility do you have to say this is legalization? What are you, a cop? Or just confused?
Smear: opponents just want to drive stoned.
Fact: heavy users will fail the test without being impaired, and lose their right in court to argue they were not.
Smear: opponents are driven by profit motive.
Fact: opponents are volunteers working to fight cannabis penalties, not create new ones.
Smear: opponents don't care about thousands of arrests annually.
Fact: 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).
Smear: Martinelli tried to use the Karschner study to show patients would fail the test.
Fact: Martinelli cited the Karschner study to show how zero tolerance would unfairly convict the under-21 set for DUI.
Smear: opponents are anti-legalization.
Fact: opponents work every day trying to change the laws for the better, and have read the bill closely enough to see it as a step backward, or at best a wash.
I-502 is a poll-driven Frankenstein bill designed to dupe misinformed soccer moms for a headline that dupes the rest of the country into believing Washington State has legalized pot.
You have to prove that "fact" instead of regurgitating it as if it's objective "fact".
@27 - You obviously are probably not a patient or regular consumer, and therefore may have less of a risk of being caught over the limit, however; If you were to be driving over the arbitrary 5ng limit proposed in I-502, and a law enforcement officer were to pull you over to test you, you would have no way to refuse that test based on implied consent laws, and no way to defend your DUID conviction or level of impairment based on the per se law.
You people either aren't grasping the concept of being charged without impairment or proof of impairment, or you don't care if innocent people have their lives permanently damaged by unjust laws. What is wrong with you people? If you are against prohibition, why are you support the perpetuation of cannabis consumer persecution? Why are you giving away our rights, and giving the prohibitionists further ways to continue this war against our citizens? Replacing the old prohibition laws for new ones is not the way to solve our problems, as we saw when we ended prohibition the first time around and then ended up in this mess...
I'm not trying to smear anyone. But I won't stand by while science I happen to know a thing or two about is being misquoted, misinterpreted, and generally misunderstood to oppose a policy change that I think we need very, very badly.
Mr. Martinelli says he cites Karschner because her work shows people will test over the zero tolerance level for persons under 21. Fine. It does show that. But it (and the Toennes study cited by Dr. Mobley) also show (rather convincingly) that it is exceedingly unlikely for even heavy users to have blood levels over 5.0 ng/ml, except when they have smoked within the last few hours.
Dr. Mobley cites his own research that indicates higher blood levels among medical cannabis patients, and further indicates that they are not impaired at those levels. This is an important counter-point, if accurate, and I will be willing to re-visit my assessment of the 5.0 cutoff in light of it...once that data set and the methodology used to obtain it has been scrutinized by the process of peer review, as have these other studies. Until then, we have Dr. Mobley's word that the data say what he says they say. That's not a knock on Dr. Mobley...that's how science works..
And? Your definition of "regular consumer" may be impaired.
"however; If you were to be driving over the arbitrary 5ng limit proposed in I-502, and a law enforcement officer were to pull you over to test you, you would have no way to refuse that test based on implied consent laws, and no way to defend your DUID conviction or level of impairment based on the per se law."
I believe that he was implying that you already have no way to refuse that test. This reiterates but does not supplant what's on the books.
"During his testimony, Dr. Mobley provided the committee with data from patient blood samples showing higher than the 5ng/ml limit proposed by New Approach Washington and I-502. In the evidence provided by Dr. Mobley, each patient went through a series of tests including the Washington State Sobriety Test, as well as neuro-cognitive assessments and reflex reaction time tests. Each patient passed despite having THC levels higher than the 5ng/ml limit as proposed in I-502."
Hmm... so these patients who are above 5ng/mL demonstrate no impairment and are easily able to pass a field sobriety test. I see.
So, what exactly is the probable cause an officer is going to use to compel the taking of their blood? This is the key point the No on Ending Prohibition crowd is not telling you - an officer has to have reasonable cause to believe you are impaired in order to take your blood. They want you to think I-502's passage means roadside checkpoints and automatic blood tests for anyone who smells like weed, and it just ain't so. If you pass the field sobriety test - he's got no probable cause!
Plus, remember, possession of an ounce isn't a crime - it's not probable cause to be messing with you in the first place. Neither is a burned-out taillight, speeding, expired registration tags, or any of the various traffic infractions the We Want Perfect Legalization Now crowd will hypothesize the poor innocent patient being pulled over and blood tested for.
What I-502 will do is make it so that a person who smokes pot all day every day, and then either gets in a wreck or demonstrates impairment to a cop, eligible for a blood test which, if read at over 5ng/mL, will guarantee a DUID conviction. What they want you to ignore is the fact that RIGHT NOW if you either get in a wreck or demonstrate impairment to a cop, you're eligible for a blood test which, if read at ANY ng/mL, will be strong evidence to convict you of a DUID. (And, actually, having a 5ng = impaired standard may make it easier to get out of a conviction if you're below 5ng.)
Another thing they won't tell you: you can refuse a blood test. Yes, Washington has "implied consent", but what that means is you consented for a blood test OR your license is administratively suspended. If you refuse the blood test, they can still charge you with the DUID based on your demonstrated impairment and they could obtain a warrant to force the blood draw (which takes even more time and gives you a better chance to be below 5ng when it is taken).
The administrative suspension, if you don't appeal within 20 days (at a cost of $200), will take effect on 61st day after your arrest, and run for at least 90 days. That's separate from your criminal trial for DUID. However, that trial has to proceed with either no blood sample from you or a blood sample taken after the long wait for the warrant. You'd be no more guilty than if you volunteered the blood sample and you have a better shot at acquittal if they don't have the blood sample.
Now, when I was 17, I got a reckless driving ticket. I was found guilty at trial, spent two days in jail, and lost my license for two years. It sucked, but it wasn't the end of the world. And nowhere in society does anyone care that I got that conviction, aside from some higher insurance premiums shortly afterward. My father got at least two DUI convictions I can recall, and those, too, weren't the end of the world.
But marijuana convictions - being a drug criminal - those stick with you. A 21-year-old with a per se DUID doesn't lose his financial aid - but he does for possession a quarter-ounce of weed. A single mom on welfare doesn't lose her federal housing for a DUID - but she loses her home for possessing weed. And 27 million annual pot smokers in America don't take a step forward by defeating a bad DUID law - they do if we become the first state to legalize.
Per se DUID sucks - it is unscientific, unnecessary, and unjust. So is marijuana prohibition. However, as noted, it is a compromise to the scared soccer moms who fear runaway stoned drivers in the streets should they vote for I-502 (as was the "zero tolerance" for <21). That's politics. If that compromise gets legalization passed, then the next battles are to secure personal home cultivation and end per se DUID - both tasks which are easier when you are legal consumers fighting to expand your rights than when you are criminal potheads looking to drive while high.
"Legalization" is not a destination, it is a journey. No on I-502 says this isn't "legalization" because it is not their pie-in-the-sky All Pot Is Legal As Much As You Want Anywhere You Want Anytime You Want Initiative that they've never gotten to the ballot in multiple tries. And when you hear some medical marijuana doctor, clinic, or dispensary tell you to vote the same way as the Drug Czar on I-502, remember that when it passes, very few people will need to buy $200 permission slips to smoke pot and real licensed and regulated businessmen will be selling it to them.
Think twice before you question the motives of those of us against this...it's BAD, bad...bad policy, and it's exactly what law enforcement wants.
Also, to give you some perspective...This initiative in endorsed and sponsored by the very person who put cannabis reform icon Marc Emery behind bars for 5 years - and to this day, openly admits to having no feelings of guilt or remorse for doing so.
Hahaha. Come back with more evidence, less alarmist bullshit.
Somebody alluded to it earlier in the comments, and I see they're right. This really *is* like arguing against the GOP house or something. You're just going to keep repeating irrelevant or false facts, ad nauseam.
There are so many lies, half (and misleading) truths, and hyperbole in your statements, it's hard to know where to start on any debate (while still getting some work done today).
It would be nice to have you fighting for, instead of against, the average voter on this measure. You know, the average Washington adult who just wants to chill, relax, and smile at home after a long day's work.
"During his testimony, Dr. Mobley provided the committee with data from patient blood samples showing higher than the 5ng/ml limit proposed by New Approach Washington and I-502. In the evidence provided by Dr. Mobley, each patient went through a series of tests including the Washington State Sobriety Test, as well as neuro-cognitive assessments and reflex reaction time tests. Each patient passed despite having THC levels higher than the 5ng/ml limit as proposed in I-502."
Hmm... so these patients who are above 5ng/mL demonstrate no impairment and are easily able to pass a field sobriety test. I see.
So, what exactly is the probable cause an officer is going to use to compel the taking of their blood? This is the key point the No on Ending Prohibition crowd is not telling you - an officer has to have reasonable cause to believe you are impaired in order to take your blood. They want you to think I-502's passage means roadside checkpoints and automatic blood tests for anyone who smells like weed, and it just ain't so. If you pass the field sobriety test - he's got no probable cause!
Plus, remember, possession of an ounce isn't a crime - it's not probable cause to be messing with you in the first place. Neither is a burned-out taillight, speeding, expired registration tags, or any of the various traffic infractions the We Want Perfect Legalization Now crowd will hypothesize the poor innocent patient being pulled over and blood tested for.
What I-502 will do is make it so that a person who smokes pot all day every day, and then either gets in a wreck or demonstrates impairment to a cop, eligible for a blood test which, if read at over 5ng/mL, will guarantee a DUID conviction. What they want you to ignore is the fact that RIGHT NOW if you either get in a wreck or demonstrate impairment to a cop, you're eligible for a blood test which, if read at ANY ng/mL, will be strong evidence to convict you of a DUID. (And, actually, having a 5ng = impaired standard may make it easier to get out of a conviction if you're below 5ng.)
Another thing they won't tell you: you can refuse a blood test. Yes, Washington has "implied consent", but what that means is you consented for a blood test OR your license is administratively suspended. If you refuse the blood test, they can still charge you with the DUID based on your demonstrated impairment and they could obtain a warrant to force the blood draw (which takes even more time and gives you a better chance to be below 5ng when it is taken).
The administrative suspension, if you don't appeal within 20 days (at a cost of $200), will take effect on 61st day after your arrest, and run for at least 90 days. That's separate from your criminal trial for DUID. However, that trial has to proceed with either no blood sample from you or a blood sample taken after the long wait for the warrant. You'd be no more guilty than if you volunteered the blood sample and you have a better shot at acquittal if they don't have the blood sample.
Now, when I was 17, I got a reckless driving ticket. I was found guilty at trial, spent two days in jail, and lost my license for two years. It sucked, but it wasn't the end of the world. And nowhere in society does anyone care that I got that conviction, aside from some higher insurance premiums shortly afterward. My father got at least two DUI convictions I can recall, and those, too, weren't the end of the world.
But marijuana convictions - being a drug criminal - those stick with you. A 21-year-old with a per se DUID doesn't lose his financial aid - but he does for possession a quarter-ounce of weed. A single mom on welfare doesn't lose her federal housing for a DUID - but she loses her home for possessing weed. And 27 million annual pot smokers in America don't take a step forward by defeating a bad DUID law - they do if we become the first state to legalize.
Per se DUID sucks - it is unscientific, unnecessary, and unjust. So is marijuana prohibition. However, as noted, it is a compromise to the scared soccer moms who fear runaway stoned drivers in the streets should they vote for I-502 (as was the "zero tolerance" for <21). That's politics. If that compromise gets legalization passed, then the next battles are to secure personal home cultivation and end per se DUID - both tasks which are easier when you are legal consumers fighting to expand your rights than when you are criminal potheads looking to drive while high.
"Legalization" is not a destination, it is a journey. No on I-502 says this isn't "legalization" because it is not their pie-in-the-sky All Pot Is Legal As Much As You Want Anywhere You Want Anytime You Want Initiative that they've never gotten to the ballot in multiple tries. And when you hear some medical marijuana doctor, clinic, or dispensary tell you to vote the same way as the Drug Czar on I-502, remember that when it passes, very few people will need to buy $200 permission slips to smoke pot and real licensed and regulated businessmen will be selling it to them.
Also, stop trying to appeal to authority (NORML, Viv, etc). It will do nothing to sway my opinion.
I do not believe that innocent, unimpaired marijuana users will be adversely persecuted under the DUID provision. I do not believe that medical marijuana patients or known users will be followed by law enforcement eager to arrest them for DUID. I do not believe that dispensaries (or STORES) will have stakeouts in front blood-testing every customer. I think these are fantasies ginned up by people who want to think of themselves as countercultural revolutionaries when in fact they're just stoners.
Don't assume voters won't shift in opinion against pot if we shoot down a reasonable and once-in-a-lifetime effort at voter-led legalization. And it really is our big chance. These advocates striking 502 have failed to get on the ballot and won't really succeed in the future, especially if their sour grapes obstruction succeeds in maintaining prison-feeding, community-destroying prohibition.
Also, you say that we're saying a lot of false information, tell me which of these are false:
1. There is absolutely no scientific consensus on a limit for THC that proves impairment.
2. Reform groups like NORML and MPP have been fighting per se laws for years.
3. The White House has called for a national per se policy.
4. I-502 does not include rebuttable presumption, voiding our 6th amendment right to a fair trial.
5. I-502 is sponsored by some of the very people who have spent years prosecuting and incarcerating cannabis consumers (and activists).
So... Stupid.
Why pass a bad bill that will probably get repealed and make legislation harder rather than just sacking this one and waiting another year for a better one that won't be repealed?
Also, Prop 19 losing didn't seem to change opinion much, as for the first time ever the majority of Americans support legalizing cannabis almost a year after it failed (http://www.gallup.com/poll/150149/record…).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_…
Most of the arguments against I-502 have been to defend habitual users, multiple times a day, and driving right after self-medicating.
You have not proven that the above is the case. It is not a fact. Your arguments, lacking supporting studies, center around FUD. And that's why your concerns are not being taken seriously.
And you are wrong, the person who toked up the night before would not be above the limit the next day. There are no studies that show this.
And all attempts will be arbitrary BUT NECESSARY until this is decided. Put forth science-based alternatives and we will incorporate them and support them.
Until then...
I am not willing to let another 10,000, 20,000, 30,000 state residents spend nights in jail because some paranoid medical marijuana patient thinks the local sheriff is out to get them.
No I won't worry about it while driving to work the next morning, because after 3 or 4 hours, I'll be under the limit. It's in the same damn study you linked too in Dominic's article.
"Likewise, Grotenhermen et al found in 2005: "The crash risk apparently begins to exceed that of sober drivers as THC concentrations in whole blood reach 5–10 ng/mL." But THC levels drop rapidly after smoking marijuana. "THC concentrations in serum typically drop to 1–4 ng/mL within 3–4 hours after consumption," the researchers reported (the concentrations in serum are equivalent of about 0.6 to 2.5 ng/mL of THC in blood, the report says, which is obviously even lower)."
And you *know* this. Which makes your scare mongering you're trying to do to me and the public...well it's frankly disgusting.
There are better ways of measuring impairment rather than matching blood content levels, such as an actual field sobriety test! If the law was supposed to rate impairment, then let's rate it with a real test. I say that a combination of evidence to support intoxication ought to be presented. I say that a DUI conviction for cannabis ought to only accompany an accident or a major traffic violation, there has to be clear indication that cannabis was ingested within the confines of the car by the driver, and they fail a field sobriety test.
I would support the I502 provision if it took into account all the factors I've discussed. However, they won't be discussed because I suspect this is a way to fleece money from cannabis users who are already stigmatized enough as it is. Let's just set an arbitrary bar so state troopers can entrap us, then slap a heavy fine to fund their next unmarked interceptor.
Back at the holding facility the officer asked if he could draw the patients blood because he believed the patient was 'stoned'. The patient refused, at which point the officer told him; 'I can't wait until 502 passes, then all of you are fucked'.
He was eventually cited for 'possession', which will be reversed once the patient brings his authorization to the hearing. If 502 passed he would have been given a DUI on the spot, refusal to cooperate we lead to a suspended license. If 502 passes, people (especially minorities) are going to find themselves in a brand new world police control. If 502 passes, the states least respected and authoritarian agency WSLCB (ATF) is going to be handed the reigns to something they have sworn TO DESTROY (that's what the ATF does, when it comes to illegal drugs).
A story like this doesn't happen too often in King and even Pierce county, but that doesn't mean we should ignore it. 502 was written without the support of the true legalization community, there is a LONG LIST of reasons for it. If you care about this please pay attention.
http://www.patientsagainsti502.org/medic…
Thanks
Gil Mobley, MD
No on i502 Officer and Spokesperson Coordinator
What you all don't understand is that if this passes, it will give so much ammo to the national movement to get a per se policy, and then we're fucked. Please think twice about this initiative...please!
From NORML's opinion:
"At NORML, we support these efforts, even when imperfect, because the greater good achieved by legalization proposals outweighs the imperfect language; and what flaws exist in individual initiatives can be amended in future legislation (or if necessary, via another voter initiative). But in the meantime, tens of thousands of marijuana arrests are avoided by the new law.
We fully recognize the per se DUI marijuana provisions in I-502 are arbitrary, unnecessary, and unscientific, and we argued strongly with the sponsors for provisions that would require proof of actual impairment to be shown before one could be charged with a traffic safety offense. NORML, arguably more so than any other drug law reform organization, has a long track record of opposing the imposition of arbitrary and discriminatory per se traffic safety laws for responsible cannabis consumers. But we failed to persuade the sponsors of I-502, and now we must decide whether to support the initiative despite those provisions. We believe the overall impact of this proposal, if approved by voters this fall and enacted, will be overwhelmingly helpful to the vast majority of cannabis consumers in the state, and will eliminate tens of thousands of cannabis arrests each year. Thus, NORML’s Board of Directors voted unanimously (including the two members from WA) to endorse the initiative, while maintaining our opposition to per se DUID provisions in principal."
Yes, NORML has been in the forefront of fighting against unscientific, unnecessary, and unjust per se THC DUID standards.
If Washington State were, like Colorado, arguing over a stand-alone per se DUID bill, we would be the first ones to loudly reject it.
But that's not the case. Washington State is arguing to LEGALIZE MARIJUANA and add a per se DUID.
We are NORML, not NORPSDUIDL. The Prime Directive is to end the arrest of marijuana consumers for consuming marijuana. There are secondary goals - end discriminatory practices against marijuana consumers, like per se DUIDs, are among them, as well as securing cultivation rights, sales rights, industrial hemp, etc.
There are thirteen states now that have some sort of per se DUID for marijuana. You'll be one of the lucky ones: most of those states have a zero tolerance for any THC in blood and some have a zero tolerance for metabolites in urine (which last wayyy longer). Four of those states have mandatory jail time when the test comes back positive raging from 24 to 72 hours.
And in all those per se DUID states, the activists fighting to change them are criminals. You'll be the only ones fighting it that will be legal consumers. And you'll get to fight it with new evidence uncovered by studies from UW and WSU, funded by pot tax money, tested on legal consumers of weed.
Now, as to this idea that the arrests will just "shift" from marijuana arrests to DUID arrests. Just do the math. There are 10,000 marijuana arrests below an ounce every year in Washington State. There were 34,594 DUID arrests in 2010... but the vast majority are for alcohol. For the Patients Supporting The Drug Czar to be right, next year over 2 in 7 DUIDs will have to be for cannabis alone to get 10,000 DUIDs. I can't get data yet on the ratio of cannabis-alone DUIDs to alcohol DUIDs, but as it stands now in Washington State, the ratio of monthly pot smokers (7.23%) to monthly drinkers (56.04%) is 1:7.75. If the cannabis:alcohol DUID ratio is similar to the monthly use ratio (doubtful, probably lower, as cannabis drivers don't demonstrate much impairment) at around 1:7.75, then DUID arrests for cannabis would have to double under I-502 for this scare to make any sense.
And again, these are the people telling you that cannabis drivers over 5ng aren't impaired, and inferring that the >5ng patients are driving around now. So if they're not suspected of impairment now, how is it we're going to suspect twice as many of them of impairment after I-502?
What we're witnessing here, as we did in California in 2010, is a confluence of factors. One is "I Gots Mine" - a condition where medical marijuana patients and profiteers are terrified that legalization somehow upsets their apple cart. Another is "Patient Entitlement Syndrome", the idea that since I'm sick, my marijuana use and everything I do on marijuana is legal and morally superior to the "stoners" who "just want to get high". Another is "Fuck the Police" syndrome, where people who've been harassed by cops for weed for so long they reflexively distrust anything coming from anyone perceived to be in authority (e.g. "This initiative in endorsed and sponsored by the very person who put cannabis reform icon Marc Emery behind bars for 5 years!"). Finally, there's good old fashioned weed paranoia and the tinfoil hat conspiracy theorists who exemplify it.
Yes, I-502 is poll-driven to pass, because legalization that passes is better than idealism that does not. Furthermore, I believe I-502 rightfully identified that there would be a fringe element of tokers who would oppose it and that the majority of on-the-fence voters would read their hyperbole and scaremongering and think, "Geez, the weed doctors, medical marijuana clinics, pseudo-legal dispensaries, and the long-haired, tattooed, pierced, dreadlocked people who throw that weed party in the park every August and throw out buckets of joints to crowds of 14-22-year-olds think this legalization is BAD? Well, there must be something going for it then..."
You also don't note that the majority of organizations and/or funders in the national movement endorse 502 and not a single person/organization of note nationally has come out against it.
Appeals to authority aren't helping you.
To all of you who think it is justifiable to incriminate innocent people as a sacrifice to "save" the thousands who are currently being incriminated - Where are your morals?
If you could stop all cannabis-related arrests tomorrow, but had to shoot your grandma in the face to do it, would you do it?
I can't justify penalizing the grandmas of this state who use cannabis for their arthritis/glaucoma/cancer. A minor possession charge is smaller than a DUID, and who will drive grandma to the pharmacy to get her prescription pharmaceuticals once they take her license for medicating with a substance safer than pills?
After 502, if he is carrying less than an ounce of marijuana, 16 ounces of hash oil (!), or 72 ounces of tincture (!), REGARDLESS OF HIS STATUS AS A PATIENT, he will not be arrested for possession.
The rest of it becomes academic after this point, but let's carry on for shits and giggles.
If, after being wrongfully arrested for possessing a legal substance, he is taken to the 'holding facility' and asked for a blood draw, and if he were to agree even though the only probable cause at this point would be possession of a legal substance, an hour after being pulled over, and he was found to have less than 5ng/ml of active THC in his blood, he would be free to go. He would then also have grounds to sue for wrongful arrest. If he has more than an ounce or 16 ounces of hash oil or 72 ounces of tincture because he was a patient he would still retain his affirmative defense in court.
If he were over the limit of 5ng/ml of active THC in his blood, he would be charged with DUID, and at court would have the ability to argue his wrongful arrest and lack of probable cause, as well as give his status as a patient if he was arrested for having more than ounce.
So, after I-502, in your hypothetical scenario, your friend would be MORE protected and have MORE rights than he does now, before I-502.
First off, tell your friend to STFU - Stop Talking in Front of Uniforms. When the cop asks "do you have anything in the car?" you say, "Why do you ask?" When he says, "I'm just wondering if you have any drugs or weapons in the car," you say, "Oh," and let that uncomfortable silence sit there. When he presses, "So, DO you?" you say, "Do I what?" He gets mad, "Do you have any drugs or weapons in the car?!?" and eventually you say, "I'm sorry, my lawyer told me not to answer cop questions unless he's present. I have him on the cell phone; would you like me to put him on speaker?"
Second, you're right, there is no arrest protection for patients in Washington... which they WILL HAVE FOR AN OUNCE if I-502 passes. If your friend had less than an ounce in the trunk, he'd never have been arrested and never been pressed for a blood test.
Third, if this guy wasn't a patient, he'd get a day in jail mandatory, a $250 fine minimum, and a "drug criminal" record for the rest of his life. So would 10,000 more of them next year if I-502 fails.
I just can't understand how some misguided people who are afraid that asshole cops will misuse a DUID statute to screw with tokers can't see that asshole cops are currently misusing marijuana possession to screw with tokers. Oh, maybe it is because these misguided people are protected from prosecution for their possession of 24 ounces and 15 plants and have been for thirteen years, and they've forgotten what it is like to tremble in fear for possessing a gram in their own homes.
You haven't indicated without a doubt that the users are "innocent", you tread in murky waters that you do not have definite answers to.
By your rhetorical logic, you are far more "selfish" for wanting to maintain this prohibition.
"Where are your morals?"
Siding with the far more numerous users that are objectively, not subjectively innocent.
As for your second point, you're basically saying that patients should be able to smoke and drive, and we're saying that no, they shouldn't.
Because it's going to be sold in stores.
" this makes no sense and seems to wrong and unethical to me."
Perhaps, work with MADD on that.
Also, my son got tested to prove to his pro-502 friends and 12 hours after smoking he had 18 ng/ml. patients, and especially high medible patients will almost all be this high or way above 5 ng.ml
If you could stop all cannabis-related arrests tomorrow, but had to shoot your grandma in the face to do it, would you do it?"
And there we have it - "Patient Entitlement Syndrome". We're selfish, because we're just potheads getting high who don't want to be locked up.
As for your silly "shoot grandma" - I'll give you this: If I-502 said "Legalizes one ounce of marijuana, state-licensed production and distribution, and revokes Russ Belville's driver's license nationally for life", I would still vote for it. Because I recognize my driving PRIVILEGE is not as important as topping the first domino in ending American Prohibition II.
The selfish ones are the people who smoke pot all damn day, who are safe from prosecution for possession of 24 ounces and cultivation of 15 plants, who shop for weed at quasi-legal boutiques, telling 10,000 Washingtonians to remain criminals for an ounce because they fear a DUID most of them are never going to face.
Again, Cydney and every other Patient Against I-502 Legalization - medical marijuana has been legal for 13 years. There are now 100,000 patients estimated. They've driven million of miles. Find me the ONE who has (a) gotten arrested for DUID, (b) blood-tested at above 5ng/mL, and (c) was acquitted of DUID or convicted of a lesser charge - because THAT'S the only person this per se DUID will affect.
Right now, a cop who suspects you're DUI cannabis can compel a blood draw. Right now, a blood draw over 5ng/mL is very likely going to earn you a conviction. Right now, your slight chance of getting out of it will cost you about $10,000 in attorney fees. So if you're really so scared of this DUID, and you don't have $10,000 on hand, you shouldn't be driving right now.
How did your son get tested? Because if you're talking about one of those over-the-counter urine tests, you just lost the argument.
I responded. And for indviduals purchasing under 21, once again...they already can if they're a medical patient. Suddenly changing the law to be a defense-free per se policy is insane, and most consumers won't understand the implications intil its way to late.
And that is an issue of education.
...and I read another comment like this, and feel compelled to respond, and I die a little more inside.
That's "one study" of 25 people, with a rigorous protocol that went through and IRB review before it even started, used rigorously standardized procedures, was subjected to peer review, was passed off on by disinterested professionals, and was published in a reputable scientific journal.
You linked to an article on the internet about an activist who got his blood tested at some indeterminate time after smoking who says he was sober.
Do you see the difference?
as should educating people against a per se policy which ignores our constitutions fair trial amendment...and the fact that people are willing to give this up for the pipe dream of buying an ounce in a store is outlandish in my eyes.
im working on a piece to publish that shows my son testing positive above 5 ng.ml 8, 12 and 24 hours after smoking. it may take a week or two to get all the info together and written but ill let you all know when i do.
Or are you paranoid that a cop would invent probable cause to harass your son, and if so, why aren't you saying that, and why aren't you fighting to defend legal marijuana users from unjust profiling instead?
You mean like every US state has adopted already?
"im working on a piece to publish that shows my son testing positive above 5 ng.ml 8, 12 and 24 hours after smoking. it may take a week or two to get all the info together and written but ill let you all know when i do."
The where and why, how, and controls are much more important to us than the numbers you're offering.
-Washington NORML
www.wanorml.org
"It legalizes possession of up to one ounce of marijuana, or 16 ounces of hash or hash oil and 72 ounces of tincture, regardless of how obtained, for all adults in the state. No arrest, no fine, no civil infraction, not even a warning. LEGAL."
The store part will likely be fought over in court. Good. But nothing will change the legalization of possession of decent amounts of weed for personal use by adults.
Regardless of where you got it.
even so, 502 will be one of the only ones in the country without rebuttable presumption which not having is what really hurts our right to a fair trial.
I call bullshit. Prove this. The Board vote at NORML was unanimous and I see no evidence that anyone is breaking ranks.
And by the way WA NORML...when talking about rights, what about our supposedly inherent right to a fair trial?
Since no one has been able to show that there are patients now who have been tested to have over 5ng/ml and not been convicted of DUID, the argument about a fair trial fails. You cannot reiterate it until you've shown a real-life case. 10,000 actual arrests a year trump your fantasy patient.