Washington State should have seen it coming. After all, pot growers and pot dealers were two of the loudest factions trying to kill California’s Prop. 19 last fall. They didn’t want voters to decriminalize pot, didn’t want any disruption to their business model, just didn’t want change. The measure failed, narrowly. So in this new political landscape where marijuana legalization looks increasingly within reach, it’s par for the course that the people currently opposing Washington’s legalization measure, Initiative 502, are the biggest pot smokers of all: medical marijuana patients.
Not all of them, of course. But enough that they’ve launched a polished website called Patients Against I-502, started an aggressive Facebook campaign designed to peel away votes, and issued statements publicly opposing the initiative.
Filed in June, I-502 is sponsored by prosecutors (including former US Attorney John McKay) and public-health leaders, and is widely seen as the most cogent, competent effort in US history to legalize, tax, and regulate marijuana. It appears headed to the 2012 ballot, with nearly a million dollars pledged and over 100,000 signatures collected. Two credible polling firms have found this year that about 54 percent of state voters support the measure.
“Washington has a chance here to displace California as the primary vehicle for reforming marijuana laws,” says Allen St. Pierre, director of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, on a phone call from K Street in Washington, DC.
I-502 would still allow authorized patients to grow, use, and exchange pot under the existing medical-marijuana law passed by voters in 1998. But certain medical pot activists are complaining that I-502 wouldn’t allow people to grow pot at home (only buy it in stores), and 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 for recreational users). They also say that a DUI provision is so toxic that the entire measure should be rejected.
Edward Agazarm, one of the most outspoken promoters of the anti-502 website, sent an e-mail this month with a subject line declaring that the initiative amounts to “rape by cops w/guns and the ACLU.”
What does he mean by “rape”?
The “rape”—according to Agazarm, who is also vice president of the Citizen Solutions firm that petitions for Tim Eyman initiatives—is that I-502 sets an automatic cutoff for stoned driving. Anyone with 5 nanograms of THC per milliliter of blood would automatically be guilty of 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. For essentially these same reasons, prominent medical-marijuana patients Ric Smith and Vivian McPeak, director of Seattle Hempfest, have opposed the measure. Medical-marijuana attorney Douglas Hiatt has also denounced I-502.
They’re right that the science is minimal and some people could exceed the 5-nanogram limit, if they are regular medical-marijuana users, without necessarily being impaired. They note that even Washington’s blood-alcohol limit of 0.08 percent is still debatable in court, whereas this measure would result in an automatic conviction for exceeding the THC limit.
But several attorneys say that marijuana DUI arrests wouldn’t increase.
“The concern is not warranted,” says Seattle City Attorney Pete Holmes, a prosecutor and co-sponsor of the initiative. He says that even in the 11 states that allow medical marijuana but have zero tolerance for THC, “they haven’t seen an increase in the DUI prosecutions for marijuana.”
Alex Newhouse, a criminal defense attorney in Yakima, points out that if voters pass I-502, officers would still need probable cause to stop a car and would need to find evidence of driver impairment before seeking a blood draw. Even then, he says, any tests would have to be conducted by a medical professional (typically at a medical clinic or an ER). “If a person is not driving erratically and they don’t appear intoxicated, [and] there is nothing for the officer to see in plain view, there is no probable cause to investigate anything,” Newhouse says.
And I-502 arguably does something useful for marijuana users accused of a 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 have used marijuana recently, 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 to support the initiative, according to a poll in May by Quinlan Rosner Research.
“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,” explained Alison Holcomb, New Approach Washington campaign director. “That is not acceptable in our society.”
The sponsors of Patients Against I-502 did not reply to an e-mail seeking comment. 
Technically, an officer only needs reasonable suspicion to pull you over. If there are no signs of impairment, nothing visible, no bad driving, and nothing that an officer can smell, there is no PC to arrest and investigate for DUI. Officers just can’t randomly pull people over and bring them to the hospital for a blood test. They don’t have the resources to do it. If patients take simple precautions and do not appear impaired, they likely will not get arrested.
Society will not accept the idea that officers should not investigate a person for DUI if they look impaired. Society shouldn’t have to. People have a right to approach this cautiously. After all, the American public has been misinformed for decades.
-Alex Newhouse
Technically, an officer only needs reasonable suspicion to pull you over. If there are no signs of impairment, nothing visible, no bad driving, and nothing that an officer can smell, there is no PC to arrest and investigate for DUI. Officers just can’t randomly pull people over and bring them to the hospital for a blood test. They don’t have the resources to do it. If patients take simple precautions and do not appear impaired, they likely will not get arrested.
Society will not accept the idea that officers should not investigate a person for DUI if they look impaired. Society shouldn’t have to. People have a right to approach this cautiously. After all, the American public has been misinformed for decades.
-Alex Newhouse
Sorry for the double post. I don’t know what happened.
Wow. Dominic. You never cease to amaze me with your stereotypes. Yet, if anyone came out with an article stereotyping gay people, you would be the first to speak out against that person. NAW makes carrying more than an ounce a FELONY. What happens when someone is convicted of a felony? They loose their right to participate in any political process, their ability to secure a job and credit for a house.
The bill violates so many of our constitutional rights, my heads spins every time I read it. Marijuana in the liquor stores? Really? Bud Tenders everywhere should be OUTRAGED. Not to mention it outlines how they can take your property and liquidate it before trial and gives health department workers the right to act the same as police officers. I think you are working for the feds, quite frankly. When then should we be invoking our Miranda rights? During the application process or inspection?
Really, people who think they are protected by this bill probably also feel they are “free” as United States Citizen. If you haven’t burned your “I Love Dirty Hippies” shirt yet, please.. let me. S
Alex you’re missing the point of why it’s so ridiculous to introduce a strict liability limit. You say cops won’t randomly pull people over and blood test them, but that’s an utter misrepresentation of how some police officers treat cannabis consumers and patients as it is, and all it takes is a patient smelling like cannabis from hours ago (or a cop claiming such) or having a cannabis friendly t-shirt on, and all the officer needs to do is claim that the driver “appeared” impaired. Once you’re past this and a blood test is taken, it’s game-over, and if the person is above the 5 ng limit then they’re instantly void of a legal defense, and whether or not they were truly impaired will play absolutely no part in the prosecution. You’re handing officers another vehicle to harass patients and slam them with permanent unimpaired
“Society will not accept the idea that officers should not investigate a person for DUI if they look impaired”
No one is denying this, but medical cannabis has been legal in this state for over a dozen years and “society” and even our law enforcement is NOT calling for a change in the system because currently people DO get DUIDs for cannabis and other drugs IF the officer can prove impairment (which in the case of cannabis is not often because it’s rarely a problem). If this was the case however, that the ONLY way to legalize is to include a new per se DUID limit, then how can it not be considered completely non-compassionate to not include a legal exception for patients such as with Arizona and Rhode Island? It makes absolutely no sense.
“After all, the American public has been misinformed for decades.”
Exactly Alex, so why continue to play into such lies and propaganda? Most serious studies have shown a distinct lack of cannabis consumption leading to an increase in car accidents (and NO legitimate study advocates for a ZERO tolerance policy for patients such as what I-502 would introduce to patients under 21). Here are a few studies on cannabis consumption and driving;
1983 – Study by the US National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA) concluded that there was no significant difference in drivers who had consumed cannabis and those who hadn’t, other than an average speed that was slightly lower. Stein, AC et al., A Simulator Study of the Combined Effects of Alcohol and Marijuana on Driving Behavior-Phase II, Washington DC: Department of Transportation (1983)
1992 – A deep and well-funded study by the US National Highway Transportation Safety Administration concluded that cannabis is rarely involved in accidents. The study, to the surprise of many, found that “the THC-only drivers had an [accident] responsibility rate below that of the drug free drivers.” Robbe, H. and O’Hanlon, J., Marijuana and Actual Driving Performance, Washington, DC: Department of Transportation (1993).
1998 – In a study that took 2,500 drivers that were involved in accidents and tested their blood samples, it was found that drivers with only cannabis (compared to having alcohol or other drugs in their system as well) were actually slightly less likely to have been the cause of an accident. The findings were concluded that, “there was no indication that marijuana by itself was a cause of fatal accidents.” The study was administered through the University of Adelaide and Transport South Australia
2000 – A study by the UK Transport Research Laboratory, commissioned through the British government, found the surprising (the study was commissioned to prove marijuana was impairing) results that cannabis users were more cautious and less likely to drive dangerously. It also concluded that “marijuana users drive more safely under the influence of cannabis.” http://www2.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roadsafety/
2004 – A study published in the Journal of Accident Analysis and Prevention, which found that those above the legal alcohol limit were 15 times more likely to have a collision, concluded that marijuana consuming drivers showed absolutely no increased risk. The study was conducted through the Dutch Institute for Road Safety Research http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15094…
2010 – A study by Hartford Hospital and the University of Iowa Carver College of Medicine, published in the Journal of Psychoactive Drugs, found that sometimes drivers under the influence of marijuana over-compensated with slow driving – but they still concluded that marijuana had little effect on driving skills and that “The study didn’t find a lot of impairment.” The test was administered through realistic driving simulations. http://www.courant.com/health/hc-marijua…
“The sponsors of Patients Against I-502 did not respond to an e-mail seeking comment.” That’s more than a stretch, wouldn’t you say Dominic? You KNOW that we returned your e-mail, even though you sent it at 8:30pm the night before your “Tuesday AM deadline.” Not only did we respond, but we did so within the hour!
Here’s a link to the email exchange:
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=…
Dominic -Is there a reason you refused to print the e-mail response you were seeking and/or attempt to contact ANY of the 6 different people who are willing to speak on behalf of Patients Against I-502? You certainly had time to contact Pete Holmes, Allen St. Pierre and a Yakima lawyer who is a known supporter of I-502.
Dominic,
This piece is an opinion piece, not a news piece. Your work history with Alison Holcomb should be enough reason for you to have recused from writing a story of obvious bias.
There are NO financial interests serving as motive behind Patients Against I-502. The opposition is purely ethical. Laws should be written based on science, and New Approach Washington clearly ignored the science by setting a numerical standard for DUIC.
As one of the first initiatives of its kind, NAW’s legalize/tax/regulate owes the entire legalization community to get this bill right the first time. If I-502 were to pass, it could set a precedent for similar legislation in other states.
Colorado rejected a DUIC provision, and rightfully so – they payed attention to the science. Why should we expect any less? see: < http://www.tokeofthetown.com/2011/05/mar… >
If you had taken the time, to actually look into the reasons and claims of Patients Against I-502, as to why they oppose the bill, your conclusion would have been far different than what you write here.
The media does the entire cannabis community a great disservice when they portray patients as “pot smokers”. Many patients medicate in other ways, such as edibles, tinctures, or gell-caps, which will increase THC levels, without the associated “high” that can lend to impairment.
Setting a DUI standard does not account for these methods of ingestion, or the level of titration (building of tolerance for substances in the body) for long-term users. Cannabis does not metabolize at a consistent rate compared to alcohol, and therefore impairment testing is not equal to the BAC model (blood alcohol content).
The one demographic that is completely ignored in this piece, is the 18 to 21 age group. I-502 has a ZERO tolerance DUIC (yes, that is 0.00) for any driver under the age of 21.
18 to 25 is the largest age group of cannabis users < http://stash.norml.org/who-are-you-us-go… >. This age group is the college-age set, and is most at-risk for being exposed to marijuana, even if they don’t use themselves.
The “probable cause” argument is a complete wash, when you consider a car full of young adults getting pulled over – maybe some used, but the driver didn’t. How is a law officer going to believe the driver wasn’t impaired when they smell pot?
The driver will be guilty for even a trace amount of THC, which can be in their bloodstream simply for “being there”.
If any of these young people wind up with a marijuana conviction, they can kiss goodbye – any federal funding for education, or other benefits they might need later in life.
This potential life ruination is brought to you, courtesy of the authors of I-502. Those that elect to ignore these facts haven’t done their homework. Those that acknowledge these facts, yet continue to support I-502, are guilty subverting freedom and liberty for political gain.
@4, Stephanie: Hi. You appear to be laboring under a number of misunderstandings.
I-502 does not make possession of more than one ounce a felony. Possession of more than an ounce, but no more than 40 grams, remains a misdemeanor. I-502 does not amend RCW 69.50.4014, and you can see that the reference to RW 69.50.4014 remains intact in RCW 69.50.4013 in Sec. 20 of I-502, on page 26.
I-502 does not put marijuana in liquor stores. In fact, marijuana retail outlets are forbidden from selling liquor or anything other than useable marijuana, marijuana-infused products, or paraphernalia intended for the storage or use of useable marijuana or marijuana-infused products. Please see Sec. 13 and Sec. 14, on pages 22 and 23.
I-502 does not allow seizure or “liquidation” of property (presumably you mean in connection with marijuana). Quite the opposite. It amends the current civil asset forfeiture statute, RCW 69.50.505, to prohibit seizure and forfeiture when the property owner is complying with the new, legal system for growing, processing, selling, and possessing marijuana under Washington state law. Please see Sec. 24, at pages 29-39.
I-502 does not allow health department workers to act as police officers. I have no idea where this notion originated, but Chapter 10.93 RCW spells out who has police powers in this state, and I-502 does not amend any sections of that chapter (or any other relating to policing).
All best,
Alison
@7, Troy:
Dominic was hired by the ACLU of Washington before I was, stopped working there two years after I started, and hasn’t worked there in over three years. It’s time to retire the “Dominic is Alison’s puppet” argument.
I take issue with your claim that Patients Against I-502’s motives (or methods) are “purely ethical.” Eddie Agazarm contacted me right after New Approach Washington held its launch press conference in June, wanting the campaign to hire Citizens Solutions to gather signatures. When I told him we had already contracted with PCI Consultants, Inc., he insulted them and hung up on me. Now, Eddie’s spamming people with emails equating I-502 to rape, and the Patients Against I-502 website is run by William Agazarm, one of your Facebook friends.
Cheers,
Alison
Alison – your comment above provides another GLARING example of how you are misinterpreting your own bill.
See section 24 – page 29. It says “RCW 69.50.500 and 1989 1st ex.s. c 9 s 437 are each amended to read as follows … Employees of the department of health, who are so designated by the board as enforcement officers are declared to be peace officers and shall be vested with police powers to enforce the drug laws of this state, including this chapter.”
Could this be where Stephanie got the WILD notion that I-502 allows health department workers to act as police officers?
THIS is just one more example of New Approach Washington being grossly misinformed or blatantly distorting the facts. How can we trust their interpretation of the OTHER 64 pages of this bill, when they can’t even understand a section where the meaning is abundantly clear.
@11 Thanks for the amusement once again, Alison.
Here you are saying Dominic should not be held accountable for his blatant conflict of interest due to prior employment with the campaign manager of a ballot initiative – and in the same breath – you single out someone else for their job decisions. Talk about a “high-pocrite!”
It’s just more proof that the only leg you have to stand on is personal attacks. When it comes to science and the facts, you’ve LOST and you know it. That is why you and Dominic have become so desperate and transparent in your pathetic attempts to marginalize the medical marijuana community.
@12, “PANAW”: The language you reference is the current law, not something added by I-502. In reading legislation, you need to understand that in any section that proposes to amend an existing statute — like Sec. 24 proposes to amend the currently existing RCW 69.50.500 — language that is underlined is new language to be added, language that is stricken through and surrounded by double parentheses is language to be deleted, and language that is neither underlined nor stricken through is the currently existing law.
Cheers,
Alison
“I take issue with your claim that Patients Against I-502’s motives (or methods) are “purely ethical.”
Alison I think you’ve been misunderstanding who’s running Patients Against I-502, because as I’ve mentioned before it most certainly isn’t one person. It’s a quickly growing coalition of doctors, lawyers, activists and patients, and trying to nail down any one particular contributor is pointless because there are many.
****”I-502 does not allow seizure or “liquidation” of property (presumably you mean in connection with marijuana). Quite the opposite. It amends the current civil asset forfeiture statute, RCW 69.50.505, to prohibit seizure and forfeiture when the property owner is complying with the new, legal system for growing, processing, selling, and possessing marijuana under Washington state law. Please see Sec. 24, at pages 29-39.” ****
The key point there is WHEN the owner is complying with the new “legal” system, which means that forfeitures will still take place on a consistent level because anyone growing a single plant or possessing more than an ounce will instantly be held to the same exact standards as they are right now.
****”I-502 does not make possession of more than one ounce a felony. Possession of more than an ounce, but no more than 40 grams, remains a misdemeanor.”****
I think the point here is how insanely illogical the system would be if I-502 passes. Under I-502’s set of laws, those possessing less than an ounce are fine, but if you possess just 50% more than that then you literally are in the same felony category as someone who commits 3rd degree rape of a child or 1st degree reckless burning (sources: our RCW).
I think though when all is said and done, the most destructive and ridiculous aspect of I-502 is how there was no legal exception for patients under the new DUID infrastructure (putting us behind even Arizona).
@11 – Alison: I have many Facebook friends, including you, not all of which I agree with politically.
In the name of public discourse – how would you answer my other assertions?
Especially the assertion that NAW willfully risks the freedom and livelihood of patients, and at-risk young adults, as collateral fodder for political gain?
This IS about ethics.
Seems a lot of the banter from the NAW folks involves trust. Trust that the police will not resort to unethical behavior to get a marijuana bust. Ms. Holcolm says that the police can only pull someone over if they ‘see’ an impairment. Believe me, if a cop wants to pull you over, he’ll ‘see’ anything he needs to see to justify putting you in cuffs. (or the hospital if you’re a brown person) Any DUI provision is toxic. Despite having NO science to back it up, we stand to codify it into law. This will give other states reason to put this garbage into their statutes, again without the science to back it up. Gee, thanks.
At Hempfest, after voicing my concern, I was told by a volunteer at the NAW booth the following…
“Don’t worry about it, David. Once we get it passed, we can make changes to it. But we have to get it passed!”
Since when do we write legislation containing insipid restrictions to basic civic rights just to get it passed, with the provision that ‘we will make changes to it after the vote’? Oh, yeah… the Patriot Act. You guys learn from the best.
We are on the brink of ending Cannabis Prohibition. Let’s not screw it up by pandering to worthless 1%’ers who won’t vote for the bill anyway.
NAW, and supporters of I-502, continue to “glaze over” concerns brought forth by Patients Against I-502, by claiming law enforcement needs “probable cause” to pull over a driver, assess potential for impairment, then warrant a blood draw.
To assume that every law enforcement officer in the universe is so altruistic, that they would never profile, or wrongfully charge any suspect of driving under the influence of cannabis is naive.
Two case-in-points:
Racial profiling by law enforcement (a problem already acknowledged by the ACLU): < http://www.alternet.org/story/152850/rac…“industrial_scale”:_fbi_using_census_data_to_map_and_police_communities_by_race?akid=7769.234046.NAPN5d&rd=1&t=8 >
Police fabricating drug charges to meet quota: < http://articles.nydailynews.com/2011-10-… >
‘Still think profiling by law enforcement doesn’t exist?
Use rates are highest among whites, or caucasians; yet incarceration rates are highest among minorities – shouldn’t use and incarceration rates be proportionate, if profiling does not exist?
Probable cause is a fallacy, and I-502 empowers law enforcement for guaranteed convictions in certain cases.
If I read the polling numbers correctly, NAW would have a 54% chance of winning without the DUI provision (with only 38% opposition). To gain another 8 points in polling, they decided to sacrifice two groups of people: MMJ patients; and anyone under 21, that MIGHT have trace amounts of THC in their system.
People can be charged for green DUI (DUIC) under the current RCW, but impairment has to be proven for conviction. Zero tolerance for anyone under 21 and subjected to cannabis smoke – or patients that medicate on a regular basis – are all potential targets for law enforcement, should they decide to pursue, or “profile” suspected cannabis users.
Creating a law that grants potential abuse of power by law enforcement is reckless and irresponsible. The DUIC statute has to go – even if it means killing the entire bill. It is not the fault of the opposition that the failings of I-502 are reprehensible, it is the fault of the authors.
To fault the people, who have the most to risk, should this bill pass – is either a misdirected accusation – or a willful attempt to “win at all costs”, even when the cost is at the expense of those most vulnerable.
It’s too bad, really, seeing the division between the pro-regulation and the pro-repeal camps continuing to escalate when the two ideas are so complementary. One is poll-driven, and well financed. The other is people-powered and rests on case law. Without the support of the other, each effort is a half-baked loaf.
Imagine what we could do together.
If both I-502 and a repeal initiative made the ballot, citizens could vote to repeal, regulate, and catalyze change at the federal level. For that to work, both camps would need to advise the public to vote for both, or at least declare a cease-fire. Otherwise, both efforts stand to fail.
@15, Anthony:
I look forward to PANAW identifying its organizers and spokespeople. I know you value transparency, too.
Regarding Washington’s drug forfeiture law: under current law, real property (homes, buildings) cannot be forfeited for growing a single plant or for simple possession without intent to deliver. RCW 69.50.505(1)(h). Cars and trucks can’t be forfeited unless used in the receipt of more than 40 grams of marijuana. RCW 69.50.505(1)(d)(iii). I-502 will expand these protections, under state law, to licensed commercial operations. The bottom line is that I-502 improves our state’s forfeiture law as it relates to marijuana.
Your issue with the fact that possessing more than 40 grams of marijuana will still be a class C felony is simply an argument that I-502 doesn’t go far enough. I-502 makes possession of up to a ounce no longer a crime and doesn’t make the penalties for possessing more worse. It’s progress.
It is good to see the author of the initiative responding on this thread.
I read the initiative a while ago and may have some misunderstandings that you could clear up.
Question 1. Would it be legal to possess any marijuana or only marijuana that is in state approved packaging with a state tax stamp?
Question 2. Where in the initiative would it make it legal to at any time transfer any amount of marijuana to someone else?
Question 3. What are the signs of marijuana impairment?
Thank you.
@20 – Alison,
Patients Against I-502 has been nothing but transparent. We sent you and every other I-502 sponsor a letter detailing our concerns back in September. It was signed by 6 different representatives of Patients Against I-502. We even went so far as to include phone numbers for these spokespeople. This same information has been provided to Dominic more than once. It is also available on our website at http://www.patientsagainsti502.org
Should you need even more transparency, go to facebook for more information about the 268 members who have joined our group.
Unfortunately for NAW, this isn’t about Patients Against I-502 or our transparency. It’s not about Eddie Agazarm or Tim Eyman. This is about the unnecessary, unscientific and UNFAIR DUIC language that YOU chose to include in I-502. It’s about NAW’s ongoing refusal to remove the faulty language that will cause innocent people to be wrongfully convicted. With the million-dollar bankroll NAW has been touting – you can clearly afford to pull this bill, rewrite and refile.
After all, even Dominic Holden concedes that “the science is minimal and some people could exceed the 5-nanogram limit, if they are regular medical-marijuana users, without necessarily being impaired.”
@19: I agree with John Toker on this. Nothing pains me more, after two years of hitting the streets for marijuana law reform, than to be forced to oppose a legalization bill.
Aside from the DUIC statute(s), the other major flaw is the proposed tax structure that will keep marijuana prices artificially high. The net result of this will be a booming black market. Prices for both medicinal and recreational use need to come down, in order to discourage illegal sales, and reduce potential for corruption in the legal system.
The dialogue we are having now, should have occurred before the final bill was written. Concerns from the rest of the legalization community were not addressed or considered, leaving all of us in the awkward position we find ourselves in now.
I would love to have a bill I could support. I also believe it is a good idea for Sensible Washington to run another repeal initiative. If it were possible, for all parties to come to the table, make concessions to move forward in a concerted effort; support each other and share resources, we could actually have a bullet-proof opportunity to finally end prohibition on cannabis in this state.
@AnthonyM.
There is no way Law Enforcement has the resources to randomly stop people, lie about impairment, and cart them to the hospital and to a DRE to investigate DUI. Not only do they seriously lack the resources, it is illegal. Plus, it is not that difficult to figure out what precautions one must take to avoid arousing enough suspicion to get arrested. If you reek of marijuana smoke, don’t drive. If you are impaired and the officers sees signs of impairment, then society gives its blessing to law enforcement to investigate the possibility of DUI.
And I stress again, People have a right to approach these issues cautiously.
@Troy Barber
I support laws that create a disincentive for minors to use intoxicants, even if they are a little on the strict end of the spectrum. I do not support kids under 21 using marijuana. I do not support kids hanging around others using marijuana. Will kids still do these things? Yes, but they will be aware that there are consequences.
The PC argument is NOT complete wash. Your question will be answered by reading this case here: State v. Grande, 164 Wn.2d 135 (2008).
And a showdown with the federal government might just provoke the change we need to spare kids the harsh penalties of losing their student loans upon a conviction. Remember, that is federal law, not state law.
It’s not just the 5ng limit.
Without legal home grow for personal use, the contraband market will always be there after hours of licensed shops for convenience. The only difference will be the after tax pricing. I understand that NAW says the price will be the same or lower, but how would that happen? Actual costs and expenses cannot be dictated by the State so all we can do is look at current pricing and see if it makes any sense.
The NAW math.
Current value of cannabis from grower to dispensaries is about $2800.00.
Current value of cannabis from dispensaries to end consumer is about $4480.00. ($10g X28g X 16oz)
$4880/$2800 is a 1.6 markup. Adding a middleman processor would split that markup to .8 at each tax level.
$2800 per pound divided by 16 ounces divided by 28 grams puts current value at $6.25.
$6.25 with 25% tax becomes $7.81 to the processor.
$7.81 with mark up (.8) becomes $14.06. Add 25% tax and it becomes $17.58 to the dispensaries.
$17.58 With mark up (.8) becomes $31.64. Add 25% tax and it becomes $39.55 to the consumer.
$39.55 X 28g X 16oz equals $17718.40 or over 3.5 times more than current pricing.
Pricing of $700 a pound or less would be necessary to achieve the promises of I-502. That pricing (and less) will only be achievable when it is in every garden legally.
A structure like this will only embolden black marketeers to continue their trade and consumers to support them. Even if ending the prohibition cuts the price in half, the public faces double the cost when obtaining product under this structure.
Ending prohibition will allow competition that will drive prices down, not up. That will put millions of dollars back into the legitimate economy through the hands of the people, not the government. They will have that money to pay bills, taxes and other goods and services that will result in other revenue to the government. They may even choose to save for their childrens education or their own retirement.
Washington State legally imports over $200 million dollars in hemp, mostly from China and Canada that is made into legal products that are then sold and taxed.
According to NAW, another $200 million is spent arresting, prosecuting, incarcerating and probation/paroling approximately 14,000 people a year that may otherwise be working, paying taxes, supporting their families and communities.
What about the children? Does a spouse/partner now have to work a second job to make ends meet? Now there would be both parents less involved with their children who then become at risk youth.
This is the result of our current prohibition. End it and create regulation that will serve the people of Washington, not special interests.
Without even considering new construction and other jobs that would improve our economy, that is a $400 million turn around in the state economy.
“There is no way Law Enforcement has the resources to randomly stop people, lie about impairment, and cart them to the hospital and to a DRE to investigate DUI. Not only do they seriously lack the resources, it is illegal. Plus, it is not that difficult to figure out what precautions one must take to avoid arousing enough suspicion to get arrested. If you reek of marijuana smoke, don’t drive. If you are impaired and the officers sees signs of impairment, then society gives its blessing to law enforcement to investigate the possibility of DUI.
And I stress again, People have a right to approach these issues cautiously.”
Alex how can you claim that there is no resources for this? Our officers harass patients and all sorts of non-criminals, who we could claim we “have no resources for”. However, that’s not the case, and with the resources or not officers WILL be able to twist the new law to persecute innocent drivers. You made the perfect point about having to take precautions…well, not all patients will have the time or energy to do a complete clean-down every-time they smoke, and in the instance when they don’t, or if they do and still smell slightly of it, then a cop can easily use that slight smell as reason for a blood test, even if it was hours ago that they smoked. You also say that this is illegal, but it’s clearly not, and as soon as you’re tested and marked with above that 5 ng limit, then whether their process was legal or not – you’re guilty.
What I also don’t understand Alex is if you’re saying you’re impaired and look impaired then society gives its blessing to investigate, but that makes absolutely no sense because the science shows that a 5 ng limit is NOT a sign of impairment, so investigating in to it is almost pointless. With today’s law an officer must prove impairment…what’s wrong with this system?
“I do not support kids under 21 using marijuana. I do not support kids hanging around others using marijuana. Will kids still do these things? Yes, but they will be aware that there are consequences.”
To me this is almost downright offensive and should be to any adult or parent in the state. We specifically, as a people, voted in this state to legalize medical cannabis for those under 21, so how can NAW take the road they are, declaring that these individuals don’t have the same rights as someone 21 and older, when we already voted that they do when it comes to using cannabis as medicine? Having a zero tolerance policy for any patient is absolutely absurd, and if a 5 ng limit really is an indication of impairment (which it clear isn’t), than what is the justification for creating a NEW class of criminals who have even stricter laws (not just stricter but downright restrictive…what patient could EVER pass a 0 ng/mL test).
One more point I wanted to make is that with the DUID statutes under I-502, it’s only a matter of time before this state introduces road-side blood tests (which has been tried in several states; http://www.massachusettsduilawyerblog.co…). In this instance….it’s game over for any cannabis consumer/patient in the state…even more-so than it already would be.
@AnthonyM
First, you make it sound like if I-502 passes we are going to move into an era of random and roving stops. Based on certain realities and limitations, this is unlikely. Why does it not make sense to investigate someone for DUI who appears impaired and is also behind the wheel of an automobile? If you look impaired, should the officer just let you go because he or she believes marijuana is involved? Absolutely not.
Second, the new and sound science that is emerging on the development of the juvenile brain speaks volumes with respect to this zero tolerance issue. For example, read some of the briefs filed in Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551, (2005) by such parties as the American Medical Association and the American Psychological Association. I do not support bombarding these developing brains with cannabinoids or any other psychoactive substance. I support strict laws to discourage this behavior. If you believe that this position should be offensive to all parents and adults, take that argument on the road and see how far you get with it. At least in eastern Washington, you won’t get out your front door.
If kids need medicinal cannabis, which I haven’t even discussed here, then that is fine. But how do you expect to convince parents and everyone else that it is a good idea to allow children who are using medicinal marijuana to drive? It’s not a good idea. There is a reason why insurance is higher for them than adults.
@Alex N.
You point to one study specifically referring to juveniles. I-502 negatively impacts FAR more than juveniles and you can find A LOT more than one study on the issue (studies about people of ALL ages, not just juveniles) at http://www.patientsagainsti502.org
Is there a reason why you -as a defense attorney- are making excuses for rogue cops and out-of-control law enforcement? You live in Eastern Washington! You should be quite familiar with the “realities” of profiling and how cops use it to unfairly target, unnecessarily harass and wrongfully detain countless individuals. What makes you think police will give up this known pattern of behavior when it comes to enforcing NAW’s UNSCIENTIFIC DUIC laws?
History has proven if you give police an inch, they’ll take a mile. I-502’s DUIC concessions to law enforcement will be no exception.
You guys don’t get .If we are the first to legalize than we could see what the government does .we would show the other states the benefit of of legalization and taxation of this .we could help fund allot of things we are cutting.
If I understand correctly, the 5 ng limit only applies to driving, not to any other activity. Is that right?
In that case, I would suggest that Patients Against I-502 refocus their energy on supporting Prop 1 and opposing I-1125.
The only problem here is that we live in such a car-dominated culture that people can’t even conceive of getting around without one. With a real public transit network, this provision would be a complete non-issue.
By the way, @22, you’re not doing yourselves any favors by refusing to acknowledge *why* the 5ng limit was included in the bill. The fact is that a majority of voters may be willing to legalize cannabis use, but there’s no chance that a majority of voters would be willing to legalize driving under the influence of cannabis. The science doesn’t even matter — if it did, cannabis would never have been illegal in the first place. It’s about taking small steps, and improving things as we can.
“I do not support bombarding these developing brains with cannabinoids or any other psychoactive substance. I support strict laws to discourage this behavior. If you believe that this position should be offensive to all parents and adults, take that argument on the road and see how far you get with it.”
Alex, who are you and NAW to take this odd moral approach and apply it to the masses, when clearly the voters and politicians of Washington State disagree with you. We voted, very clearly that those under 21 can have cannabis for medical purposes, whether or not you agree with that. That being said, our elected officials could have introduced per se DUID limits for patients or those under 21 if there was a call or need for it.
They haven’t, and there hasn’t been.
To assume that this is necessary (a zero tolerance limit for individuals under 21) makes no sense to me, because including the initial 5 ng per se limit (which once again is scientifically bankrupt as it is) would have been plenty to tide the voters over on the DUI issue, if it’s true what you’re saying about the public supporting it.
Of course a wiser idea would have been to simply use the large sums of money they (NAW) have to actually educate the public on the issue, rather than pandering.
@30 – “Why” was the DUIC language included in the bill? Ask any NAW supporter and they will tell you it was included to get votes and ultimately win.
Not ONCE has the NAW camp suggested the DUIC language is needed to protect the public. It’s all about feeding NAW’s insatiable need to win. That alone is NOT a good enough excuse to convict SOBER drivers of DUI.
You can keep telling yourselves that science doesn’t matter, but when it comes to measuring impairment, science is key. NAW has proven it flunked basic science, and now you want patients to become unwilling lab rats for this poorly thought out experiment.
Medical benefits are not proven, and from my experience I see little to no possible chance of it ever being any better than Aspirin for pain. So, it is my contention that “medical” users are just happier being part of an elite crowd that can openly flaunt their breaking a law, because it is still illegal even with the medical laws. This is just proof that I was right. The comments here by those against it are only strengthening my argument.
So, make it completely legal or at least stop lying about it being medicine.
Hey Kitten, in 2009 the American Medical Association (the largest association of medical doctors and students in the country) came out for rescheduling cannabis on a federal level because of its medical benefits. I think it’s far beyond opinion at this point that cannabis holds medical value.
http://www.ama-assn.org/resources/doc/cs…
While the AMA and others have shown that cannabis has its medicinal benefits to some, does the name Jack Keewatinawin ring any gongs?
@35 – Your point is that certain self-reported marijuana users, who also happen to be certifiable psychos, use cannabis as their excuse for attacking and trying to rape women?
Is it safe to assume you’re against legalization for recreational users (and therefore against I-502)?
NOT all patients are against the New Approach Initiative! Thank you Dominic for a great article and for not being afraid to tell it like it is! Follow the money trail – look at who is against this initiative? Hiatt the lawyer profits from folks getting busted. Most medical marijuana activists make a living off of meds. A GOOD ACTIVIST IS WILLING TO GIVE UP MAKING MONEY OFF THE OBJECT OF THEIR ACTIVISM. Furthermore we need LESS folks driving high on the road not more… what is it that folks think it is their right to drive distracted?
As a medical marijuana activist I would give up my job tomorrow if this initiative would pass. THINK OF THE JOBS it could create!
NOT all patients are against the New Approach Initiative! Thank you Dominic for a great article and for not being afraid to tell it like it is! Follow the money trail – look at who is against this initiative? Hiatt the lawyer profits from folks getting busted. Most medical marijuana activists make a living off of meds. A GOOD ACTIVIST IS WILLING TO GIVE UP MAKING MONEY OFF THE OBJECT OF THEIR ACTIVISM. Furthermore we need LESS folks driving high on the road not more… what is it that folks think it is their right to drive distracted?
As a medical marijuana activist I would give up my job tomorrow if this initiative would pass. THINK OF THE JOBS it could create!
“Hiatt the lawyer profits from folks getting busted”
Hey muraco, this clearly makes utterly no sense, because Douglas Hiatt has ran an initiative for the past 2 years (sensiblewashington.org) to fully legalize cannabis within the state, so to say he’s against this initiative because of possible “profits” makes no sense (not to mention the mass amount of pro bono work he does for patients). He’s against it because he represents patients in a way that few other people ever do and has their best interest at heart, and I-502 is absolutely NOT in their best interest.
“what is it that folks think it is their right to drive distracted?”
No one is saying anything in this regard, most all of us believe that if a driver is truly impaired, they should receive a DUI. However, a per se limit has absolutely nothing to do with impairment and most patients and regular consumers will never be able to pass a test, even if they’ve stopped smoking for hours (or in some instances days in the case of patients and those under 21). Our current DUID laws regarding cannabis, as it’s been said on here already, are fine. Changing them for the worse for the chance of a political “victory” is wrong.
“THINK OF THE JOBS it could create!”
Muraco it will create no jobs…none. If you take a deep look at this initiative it’s very clear that the distribution system will absolutely be destroyed in a court battle against the Federal Government, so no jobs or cannabis stores will come from I-502 passing.
“Hiatt the lawyer profits from folks getting busted”
Hey muraco, this clearly makes utterly no sense, because Douglas Hiatt has ran an initiative for the past 2 years (sensiblewashington.org) to fully legalize cannabis within the state for adults, so to say he’s against this initiative because of possible “profits” makes no sense (not to mention the mass amount of pro bono work he does for patients). He’s against it because he represents patients in a way that few other people ever do and has their best interest at heart, and I-502 is absolutely NOT in their best interest.
“what is it that folks think it is their right to drive distracted?”
No one is saying anything in this regard, most all of us believe that if a driver is truly impaired, they should receive a DUI. However, a per se limit has absolutely nothing to do with impairment and most patients and regular consumers will never be able to pass a test, even if they’ve stopped smoking for hours (or in some instances days in the case of patients and those under 21). Our current DUID laws regarding cannabis, as it’s been said on here already, are fine. Changing them for the worse for the chance of a political “victory” is wrong.
“THINK OF THE JOBS it could create!”
Muraco it will create no jobs…none. If you take a deep look at this initiative it’s very clear that the distribution system will absolutely be destroyed in a court battle against the Federal Government, so no jobs or cannabis stores will come from I-502 passing.
TL;DR – Let’s say you’re a patient and cannabis controls your pain and your spasms:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0kFONk9j… (1 min video)
You get stopped for a busted tail light in Clark County, and your car smells like cannabis. A per se DUI statute means you have no ability to mount an effective defense in court. The blood test alone is enough to find you guilty, even if you are habituated to your medicine and therefore not impaired.
In 2010, per se limits on active THC metabolites certainly seemed like a politically savvy way forward. Since then, Colorado has shot them down, and NORML Deputy Director Paul Armentano has unequivocally stated that “it is virtually impossible to make inferences regarding a subject’s impairment based upon the presence of THC alone.”
http://mulliganlawfirm.com/colorado-legi…
http://norml.org/library/item/cannabis-a…
I’m not saying that activists wouldn’t be wise to stand with NAW on common ground. (GROW HEMP. GROW HEMP. GROW HEMP.) However, it’s not hard to see why this would be an understandably hard pill for patients to swallow, even for those not on chemo.
@36: I never said I was for or against I-502. But isn’t it ironic that a total nutcase in Carkeek Park is making the argument for the medicinal benefits of legalizing the use of cannabis look bad?
Peace.
@42 – Are you kidding? That nutcase makes nutcases look bad. 8^D I will give him props for turning himself in, but I like to think that was the weed talking.
I didn’t see where he was making a case for medicinal benefits (link?). To me, he is making the case for a social safety net. Imagine Washington State putting our tax dollars toward a mental health treatment instead of footing the bill for this corrupt and failed drug policy.
Can Alison, Dominic, or anyone else associated with the I-502 please respond to the questions in 21.
Thanks.
Dominic Holden ADMITS to his lack of neutrality on this issue in the “comments” thread of this facebook post:
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=…
Readers, wouldn’t you like to be informed before you read a story that the writer has an ADMITTED BIAS on the topic?
To avoid any appearance of conflict of interest, The Stranger should assign a neutral reporter to I-502 coverage in the future.
@43 John: I think you misunderstood the point I was trying to make. If cannabis benefits you, you smoke it and it gives you a good high without hurting yourself or threatening the lives of others, and /or you need it medically for chemo-therapeutic purposes, more power to you. Unfortunately, there is the occasional Jack Keewatinawin or two who abuses the system, and a lot of weirdos reside in public parks already, especially after dark.
I agree: it would be nice to see our tax dollars go into mental health treatment instead of further enabling the corruption of our existing policies.
@21 Island Bound:Thank you for asking good questions on this subject. I’d like to know, too!
@45) You’re right, my writing for The Stranger on this issue isn’t neutral. Having heard your arguments, read your website, and interviewed lawyers and activists who make your case, I think this initiative is still worthwhile.
I’ll keep an open mind and could even change my mind (I’ve done it before). But all media is biased, even though many outlets don’t admit it. The Stranger is just honest about its opinions.
@muraco-
If you question Douglas Hiatt’s motivation or intentions, it makes me question yours. Not only is he willing to sacrifice his job for the sake of legalization, he is actively working to do so by filing marijuana legalization initiatives, not to mention his many years of continuous advocacy. Beyond just being a protector of patients, he is also the first recipient of the Seattle Hempfest Cannabis Activist Award.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jtzVSZnSr…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BAwcKXpf-…
I appreciated several commments – I especially appreciate John Toker’s reasoned view. I think it was said some time ago that “a house divided will not stand”. I assume the speaker knew what he was talking about.
Part of the problem with with 502 is that it was released promptly on the heels of a very discouraging failure of what I think would have been a great iniative and one that I worked hard on. Waiting a year or so might have been positive. Nevertheless, I hear the organizers have done their polling homework (thanks Alison for the input on that) and certainly have done their fundraising homework.
While I am not working on 502, I will vote for it with the idea that it is a step – and that there will be a push to correct defects as it becomes implemented. I strongly expect the organizers of 502 will agree with this latter assessment.
Unfortunately Aner the DUID provisions isn’t a defect that will be so easily change. First, it would be two years after passing before it would even be politically realistic to amend it, and at that point removing it will be a huge challenge, as getting our Legislatures to enact reasonable reform clearly doesn’t always go our way.
In the mean time, any patient or smoker in the state will be at substantially more risk of persecution if they drive, and even for those who don’t they’re left only with one ounce decrim at best after federal pre-emption, and that one ounce decrim is NOT worth further criminalizing patients (especially when you consider the fact that it could set the reform movement back years and negatively effect the landscape across the nation if other state’s try to legalize following a similar model).