How in the FUCK does her husband being in prison have anything to do with her running a pot store?

In addition to @1; what does her being a black woman have to do with this story?

@2 Context. History. Etc.

I don't really understand how separating assets works in Washington, but a notarized letter doesn't actually require a convict in this case not to be involved with business decision. (We were all laughing about this when Trump tried it a couple weeks ago.)

It also doesn't mean he wouldn't have a financial stake in the business, and there's no way a court is going to rule that keeping a convicted murderer from being part-owner of a drug business isn't a legitimate state concern. On face, and to a non-legal expert, the provision seems to be broadly applicable and neutral as courts are inclined to judge these issues.

She's also just terrible for the legalize movement, optically.

"The United States is now the only country on the planet who is not part of this agreement because it doesn't find the problem important enough."

Some people keep saying that this agreement doesn't cost anything because it doesn't require anything, but then complain because we are no longer a signatory to an agreement that doesn't require anything and can thus not accomplish anything.

And people are quick to assign motives that weren't actually expressed. "Didn't find the problem important enough" is a popular opinion. It could also be that "this agreement does nothing to accomplish the alleged goal but will cost money complying with, even if it is just 'good will' compliance." It takes an adult to look at an agreement critically and avoid the emotionalism and politics behind it, and decide that the result of agreeing isn't worth the costs. People say "warm fuzzy feelings" to get children to do things we want them to, but once they grow up we expect them to be more discerning.

This treaty is "warm fuzzy feelings" with nothing behind it. Everyone seems to admit that, even those who argue we should stay in it. The result of agreeing" is not "clean air for all and falling global temperatures", the "result of agreeing" is purely political and emotional baggage. The "result of agreeing" is handing a bludgeon to third world countries to use to browbeat the US when the US doesn't give them money to help them meet their goals. It won't be missing a required payment, it will be the court of world opinion (kinda like today) where the opinion that "the US should be paying other countries because yada yada and they agreed to it in Paris" will become the endless refrain.

"It now becomes harder to get countries to work with us on just about anything if we aren't even willing to be part of a goodwill gesture that had no real consequences to us if we stayed in it."

Agreements have to have some benefits to all the parties involved. If other countries don't feel like working with the US when it will benefit them, that's called "cutting off one's nose to spite one's face". It is always their choice to do that. And if an agreement brings them no benefit, I would never expect them to agree to it. But the US is expected to do so because "warm fuzzy feelings".

Or perhaps it is a lesson to other leaders of state that assumed that the US President had unilateral power to commit the US to treaties, despite the US Constitution being available to all online for their review of the actual requirements. It is lunacy to believe that any non-binding agreement with one political winner will survive a sea change in the political landscape, whether it is Angela Merkel believing it or 'ranton'. And it would be just as lunatic for Trump to believe that any non-binding promises that Angela Merkel makes on behalf of Germany would survive her replacement, especially if she is replaced by a political opposite.

@6....ah...wrong posting there buddy

@7: and no less stupid for it.

@1 & 2 - If she were a nice white lady with a husband in jail on a long bid for a similar crime, I do personally wonder if the Board would have pushed back nearly so hard on this.

@9 White ladies married to murders who are also trying to sell drugs aren't really ever thought of as "nice." You're making up a lady.

@9 I swear, and this is a point I think slog should spend some time exploring, intersectionality is a thing even when someone's identity intersects with the hegemonic.

When I read that article defending transracialism that everyone is up in arms about, the author's assertion that a transwoman could decide to live as a male and benefit from male privilege convinced me she had no idea how gay, trans, and queer men experience this fractured, disjointed, and ephemeral thing female scholars all treat as monolithic, "male privilege."

Similarly, you have no idea how sexual stigma, prison stigma, poverty, etc affect white privilege and peoples' experience of race. That you think whiteness is just a wash-away for all other kinds of non-belonging and alienation is incredibly naive.

The "nice" white, drug-dealing lady with the killer husband? She doesn't exist.

@10

Ehhh. Perhaps nice is going too far with it but the subtext of it is - if she were white, I think that the circumstances of her situation would be in her favor. She married this guy well into his prison bid and doesn't appear to have known him when he committed the crime. Her association by proxy to the crimes her husband has committed is nuanced but different and she couldn't have known or anticipated the future in this regard. These circumstances seem entirely reasonable to me and they would also likely behave much more reasonably if she wasn't a POC.

@11

Thanks for the lecture but I'm a POC myself and grew up poor. We were on food stamps for a long stretch in my childhood, enough that I remember getting into fist fights with kids at school about them shaming my family for using food stamps in the store (this was before the EBT cards). Also, I've had relatives in prison, some of them down on long stretches of time. I know plenty about privilege and not having it but I didn't realize I had to present my bonafides to leave a one off comment but thanks for the scolding.

You guys, her husband killed somebody, and she won't divorce him. Pretty sure that invalidates any charge of institutional racism here. Lots of white (and black, and Asian, and female) people who aren't married to murderers and would like to run a pot store aren't able to, because they lost some dumb lottery. Isn't that more outrageous?

@12 you don't need to slap down your bonafides, just don't say idiotic shit. You're treatment of whiteness as a magic cure-all for all kinds of stigma is idiotic. You have no experience in white skin, and obviously you have some misconceptions about what it's like. Acknowledging that shouldn't be hard.

@5 RCW 26.16.050 He relinquished his right to the community property, so the purpose of the WSLCB regulation is fulfilled. The purpose of it is to keep criminals from having a stake in a cannabis business. If they don't have a legal stake in their spouses business, then the purpose is fulfilled. Should be an interesting case.
Additionally one of the purposes of I-502 was to alleviate racial disparities in the law. It seems like the WSLCB would be encouraging women of color instead of putting up unnecessary road blocks.
RCW 26.16.050
Conveyances between spouses or domestic partners.
A spouse or domestic partner may give, grant, sell or convey directly to the other spouse or other domestic partner his or her community right, title, interest or estate in all or any portion of their community real property: And every deed made from one spouse to the other or one domestic partner to the other, shall operate to divest the real estate therein recited from any or every claim or demand as community property and shall vest the same in the grantee as separate property.