You’ve been waiting for this since the first time you got high in your basement. Or since you first talked about pot laws with a smart friend.
You know pot prohibition is just as much of a sham today as alcohol prohibition was in its day. You’ve been hoping someone—someone with a real strategy and money to win—would end this nonsense.
Now that’s finally happening. On June 22, Washington State, in a way no state has ever attempted, will begin a serious effort to legalize, tax, and regulate marijuana. The method: an initiative, filed by a new coalition of health care professionals, lawyers, and drug law reform advocates.
“This is the best effort that has ever been made at the grassroots level in the entire country,” says Seattle City Attorney Pete Holmes, one of several cosponsors of the campaign, called New Approach Washington. “This is the states assuming leadership where Congress has abdicated responsibility.”
If passed by voters next year, the initiative will establish a complete farm-to-joint regulatory framework: state-licensed growers, distributors, and retail outlets, and rules for adults 21 and over to buy and consume marijuana. Meanwhile, it would establish penalties for driving under the influence of marijuana, maintain rules for minors, and set buffers around schools where marijuana stores would be banned.
“This is the first reform initiative that is truly comprehensive,” says Holmes.
The backers aren’t a bunch of stoners. In addition to Holmes (an elected prosecutor), cosponsors include University of Washington School of Social Work professor emeritus Roger Roffman, former Spokane Regional Health District director Dr. Kim Thorburn, former director of the HIV/AIDS Program of Public Health–Seattle & King County Bob Wood, former Washington State Bar Association president Salvador Mungia, and PBS travel host Rick Steves.
They have the backing and financial support of the local and national ACLU, powerful labor unions, and Democratic Party supporters that want—maybe even need—the draw of a marijuana measure to increase young voter turnout in a presidential election year.
But it won’t be a cakewalk. Polling shows the measure up by only about 11 points before an inevitable onslaught of scrutiny and resistance (including many legitimate concerns about the health impacts of increased marijuana availability). If it wins, a legal challenge is likely. While in the courts, marijuana possession of up to an ounce would be decriminalized (no penalty but not legal), and the legality of the new state-run regulatory system would butt heads with long-standing federal prohibition.
Still, some state needs to go first. Some state with the political will, the voter enthusiasm, the resources, and the strategy—a state where everything is set in place to buck 75 years of pot prohibition. It may sound crazy, it may seem like a long shot, but people around the country (politicos and academics who watch these sorts of big changes) say Washington State is that state. They say now is the time. They say this coalition is strong enough to break decades of entrenched policy.
Alison Holcomb, campaign director of New Approach Washington, is certain the initiative will get on the ballot next year. “A majority of Washington voters support marijuana legalization,” she says. “The question is not whether legalization will happen, but when. The answer is 2012.”
WHAT IT ALLOWS Adults 21 years of age and older could buy pot at licensed outlets in the quantities mentioned above. The Washington State Liquor Control Board would set the number of stores per county, based on each county’s population. What wouldn’t be allowed: For drivers, the initiative establishes a THC cutoff in the bloodstream analogous to the 0.08 cutoff for driving under the influence of alcohol. If you’re over the THC limit, you’re automatically guilty of DUI. Selling and home growing would be prohibited—to address concerns about unregulated marijuana farms—except by authorized medical marijuana patients. Use by minors would remain a misdemeanor.
WHEN IT HAPPENS This is a so-called initiative to the legislature, which goes before lawmakers in Olympia before reaching voters. By choosing this strategy, organizers draw out the debate for over a year. Sponsors circulate petitions through the summer and fall, and when the legislature convenes next January, lawmakers can either pass it outright (not gonna happen) or place it on the November ballot. The legislature could also send voters an alternative measure along with the initiative if they have enough votes to do that (probably not gonna happen).
WHERE THE MONEY GOES Marijuana is the state’s number-two cash crop, after apples, and legalizing it would provide the state a net benefit, from both new revenue and law-enforcement savings, of at least $240 million per year. Of that, $175 million would be largely earmarked for drug abuse prevention and science-based education programs, developed in consultation with the UW Social Development Research Group. “One of the major costs of marijuana being illegal is the misinformation, half-truths, and outright lies that occur both from the government and from some people who argue for legalizing marijuana,” says Dr. Roger Roffman, a cosponsor of the initiative and a UW professor who ran a marijuana treatment project. “I think the public is better served by acknowledging all the truths of marijuana.”
FROM THE FARM TO JOINT The state would collect a 25 percent excise tax at each stage of production, similar to the existing model for producing, distributing, and selling liquor. For the retail consumer, who must also pay sales tax, this means that at least half of the cost would be taxes (more about how that money would be spent under the revenue graph, which is to the left). The Washington State Liquor Control Board would be required to regularly review the tax levels to discourage use while undercutting illegal market prices.
THE PROBLEM WITH PROHIBITION The rate of marijuana arrests in the US has far outpaced population growth. While the population grew only 24 percent from 1990 to 2010 (248 million to 308 million), in roughly that same time frame, pot arrests increased by more than 200 percent. In Washington State, where arrests are slightly lower than the national rate, law-enforcement agencies report around 9,000 marijuana arrests per year. People arrested for even a joint are often jailed, prosecuted, required to spend thousands of dollars in legal fees, and left with a criminal record for the rest of their lives.
PUBLIC OPINION Support for legalizing marijuana has grown for decades, reaching majority support only recently in certain national polls. Even so, in California last year, a poorly worded, underfunded measure to decriminalize pot failed with only 46 percent of the vote. In Washington State, polls show that a slim majority of voters support legalization and taxation, while the number opposed to legalization and taxation is more than 10 points lower. New Approach Washington hopes to convince undecided voters to support the initiative and capitalize on the young, robust voter turnout in a presidential year—and, potentially, draw more progressive voters to the polls. After meeting with statewide labor groups, campaign director Alison Holcomb says, “There is a recognition that this initiative provides a great opportunity for progressive organizations leading into the 2012 elections.” 
With regards to driving and DUIs. How is the THC level to be determined? Does a technology exists?
As far as taxing goes, will the end product be a similar or lower price than blackmarket currently? Seems to be a lot of taxing going on in that circle.
Also with regard to DUIs: “automatically guilty” – is that even vaguely legal? Does it refer to the Department of Licensing (civil) DUI offense or the criminal DUI offense? If it is registered as a DUI, what equivalents to the Ignitiion InterLock (ILL) device will be available allowing users to prove “clean” in order to drive to work?
Other than that, this looks promising.
One thing to note, in casting marijuana laws as ‘Prohibition’ and the negative connotations that has word acquired over time: Prohibition was actually very successful in preventing/reducing drinking. Drinking rates fell by as much as 90%, and the romanticized notion of gangsters and rum-runners taking over the nation has largely been a mythology, rather than fact.
This is a great start to bettering this state. With legalizing MJ, this will greatly reduce the amount of black market dealers on the streets. Not to mention, bring better law enforcement to the streets who work for the people (to help us) instead of against the people (to find a reason to punish us) considering their jobs will be more valuable from the tax money saved from criminalizing people with MJ.
Is there an estimate of the difference in price between legal, store bought marijuana and current street prices? I ask because it seems with a 25% tax at every step of production it will make the price significantly higher for the consumer. If that happens to be the case, what is the incentive to buy from a store and not just your usual dealer?
soooo… what kinda prices are we talking about?
As a consumer I am interested in how much pot would cost, given that over half the cost would be going to taxes. So, with our current black market, if I now pay $80 for 1/4 oz, what would I be likely to pay for the same amount under a regulated market?
@2 & @6 – Currently weed travels through several middlemen after leaving the farm before it hits the small beans dealer most people buy their pot from. Each step along the way, the middlemen will add their mark-up as it’s broken down into smaller and smaller quantities. I’m sure the $50-60 I pay for a 1/4 is at least, if not more, than 50% markup. And it says in the article, “The Washington State Liquor Control Board would be required to regularly review the tax levels to discourage use while undercutting illegal market prices.” I’m sure they’ll have a system to monitor the black market rates to make sure the legal sales outlet has a competitive edge to keep the money channeling through the state.
Umm… I meant for a 1/8. I wish I was getting $50 1/4’s
One question is how is regulation going to affect prices of pot. In our current black market system, a 1/4 oz of pot is $80 (at least in my experience). In the proposed regulated market, over half the cost is going to taxes, which is fine, but it makes me wonder what prices will look like on the user end.
Chris Jury, would you mind citing the source for your comment that prohibition reduced alcohol consumption by up to 90%?
thanks
@6 one would think the quality level of store-bought MJ would be far superior to that of street MJ.
Let’s get this thing done.
Also not a fan of the DUI part… thc stays in your body a long time, diff people metabolize it at diff rates. But still like it as a whole, its a lot better thought out than the sensible WA approach. Also glad it does not change existing medical laws.
Worst case scenario prices would increase by $10-$15 bucks, which wouldn’t entice anyone to change their ways.
But they are trying to undercut, which means that we could see a reduction of $5-$10 dollars, and I would openly welcome $30 eighths and $70 quarters, assuming it is of the same general quality of the weed I currently get.
Also, would there be a similar pricing system such as the one seen currently in our dispensaries, or somehow different?
Final thought: Knowing that places can get Liquor licenses and sell liquor inside their establishment, is it possible that the WSLCB would start issuing “Marijuana Licenses” to allow private businesses sell in a fashion similar to the Amsterdam Coffeeshops?
This is, of course, a great step in the right direction, and we shouldn’t let the perfect be the enemy of the substantial improvement.
I am however somewhat concerned about the DUI provision, even allowing for the fact that there should be *some* way to deal with the issue of impaired driving. Specifically: 1) the data regarding how blood levels of THC correlate with degree of impairment are not as clear and predictive as they are with alcohol; 2) given (1), the legal standard is likely to be set very conservatively; 3) the only reliable way to measure THC levels in blood is to draw blood (THC doesn’t equilibrate rapidly into all water-containing compartments of your body the way EtOH does, which is why breathalyzers work); 4) given the practical limitations presented in (3) it may be tempting to do urine tests for metabolites instead, which anyone who has had a close call (or worse) with a pre-employment screen knows will catch you long after you are anything remotely close to being “impaired”.
I sincerely hope people who actually understand the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of THC (i.e., real experts, not just any doctor) are or will be involved in crafting this part of the legislation.
Don’t worry about prices. I would bet that after a few years of this we’ll end up with fairly high taxes, just because the stuff is so cheap to produce. I wouldn’t be surprised if the current markup is in the multiple hundreds of percent. Remember, each middle man in the loop is risking his/her life and freedom to be in that market – the financial benefit most likely matches that risk.
Plus, something called “weed” can’t be that expensive to grow. I can buy a hydroponically grown head of lettuce for a few bucks.
I really hate the part where it’s illegal to grow it at home for non-patients. I know you have to start somewhere, but that is stupid.
RE: DUI. How is this handled now? Surely it isn’t currently legal to drive stoned. I assume they’ll just tighten up the law a bit as a nod to those that are afraid pot use will go up (it probably will, but I’m guessing those that don’t smoke because it’s currently illegal won’t be the type to drive stoned).
@19: Agreed. We can’t just have freedom all willy-nilly, unless someone can make a profit from it.
While I agree that driving stoned is a bad idea and for this to be really successful there needs to be some sort of provision against driving while impaired.
HOWEVER. How much of a risk is a stoned driver _really_? Unless they’ve been taking bong rips for hours on end, in my experience stoned drivers are overly cautious and slow rather then aggressive and fast like drunk drivers.
I understand the need but stoned != drunk as far as driving behavior is concerned.
This is a fantastic model, providing they can deliver the product to consumers for significantly less than current black market prices. Economics is the only way to move this industry above ground where it belongs.
As for people growing it themselves: Outdoor/small greenhouse operations, for personal use, sure. Indoor hydroponic, no way. This, however, should be the domain of building codes/Fire Marshal’s office.
I have no idea on the mechanics of the DUI aspect of this—and the field sobriety test jokes are way too easy (Highway Patrol’s sobriety test kits now include Carl Sagan DVDs and Cool Ranch Doritos? Sorry.)—but I think it’s fair to say, as with booze, if you/your vehicle smells like weed—further investigation by law enforcement is warranted.*
* Of course we don’t want stoned drives, but the big upside here is that maybe, just maybe, people will learn to WRAP THEIR FUCKING WEED PROPERLY.
Also, sorry for all the commas.
@20:
Right now, driving while stoned is illegal under the catch-all DWI law – driving while intoxicated. However, there are currently no strict definitions for what “intoxicated” means with regards to weed; it’s whatever the prosecutor feels like arguing.
The initiative would set such a legal limit, presumably a blood THC level. This would add a lot more clarity to the law, and would keep people from being prosecuted for low levels of THC.
Getting legal parity with alcohol with regards to traffic law is progress. Currently you can chug a few beers and still be under the .08 BAC limit, but a single puff on a joint a few hours earlier can win you a DWI.
@23: Reasonable limits on home growing, yes – limit the number of plants and prohibit selling. Right now, I could legally grow tobacco in my yard. I could grow grapes and make wine or hops and make beer. None of those I can legally sell. I currently have enough pretty foxglove flowers in my yard that I could probably poison all my neighbors. A couple of cannabis plants on the patio next to the tomatoes hurt nobody, but if EVERYONE did it, Costco Farms and the state wouldn’t get their money. This is more about turning prohibition into cash flow than ending it.
From NORML’s website:
“In conclusion, marijuana impairs driving behavior. However, this impairment is mitigated in that subjects under marijuana treatment appear to perceive that they are indeed impaired. Where they can compensate, they do, for example by not overtaking, by slowing down and by focusing their attention when they know a response will be required. …
Comparing alcohol and marijuana:
Both substances impair performance; however, the more cautious behavior of subjects who have received marijuana decreases the impact of the drug on performance, whereas the opposite holds true for alcohol.”
REFERENCE: A. Smiley. 1999. Marijuana: On-Road and Driving-Simulator Studies. In: H. Kalant et al. (Eds) The Health Effects of Cannabis. Toronto: Center for Addiction and Mental Health. Pp. 173-191.
But wait, Costco will want to distribute it and screww up the state monopoly/taxes thing.
Where do I sign up to be a licensed grower?
LOL.
Or maybe I’ll set up shop to make brownies.
OOO! Imagine The MJ Version of Cupcakes Royale!?
Yup…that’ll be me.
I can’t wait for this Prohibition to end. It’s beyond stupid.
Might take ’til I’m 60, but it’ll get here.
(yay retirement! if that still exists by then)
@4 LOL. Tell that to the Kennedy family.
@25 – Exactly, and I agree. This is my concern with home hydroponic operations.
The blood test part is the poison pill, what everyone above said. If someone falls a field sobriety test that’s one thing, but you can’t use blood if the science isn’t or won’t be effective enough to prevent a regular user being dinged for driving while intoxicated. More research is needed.
@31 How many years more research? Is that really going to kill the bill for you? It seems mildly unrelated. If it’s a problem, then it’s a problem right now and will continue to be a problem whether or not pot is legallized.
how will this affect the cost for consumers? cheaper pot? tax heavy, expensive pot?
@32 Yes, it’s absolutely a problem if the law says I can be charged with a DWI when I’m not even driving under the influence.
@32 And you could’ve tried refuting me by telling me WHY I’m wrong about the blood test part, or how it’s going to protect regular users, but you can’t, so better to dismiss it as “mildly unrelated”.
What is one supposed to do with marijuana lotion?
@22: If I drive really careful while I’m drunk, does that make it okay? No. Because alcohol, like weed, dulls the senses and the reaction time. The fact that one is compensating for that slower reaction time by driving slower doesn’t make it okay.
With that said, being too tired or angry can have the same effect on your driving ability. I say we continue to give police the leeway to determine if someone is driving recklessly, and act on that.
I don’t know enough about the science to speak to how they should handle field testing, but more specifically codifying DUI laws regarding marijuana would be a decent strategy as a concession to those against its legalization.
Ya’ll probably wouldn’t like current DUI laws being unilaterally applied to smoking weed (i.e. no open containers, no smoking paraphernalia visible, no smoking in the car [driver or passenger, moving or parked]—basically weed stays in unbroken containers from the store or stays in the trunk; just like alcohol), but I would barely consider this a sacrifice, as the culture will easily adapt.
along w/ the other smokers, i am concerned about the blood test. we all know pot stays detectably in your system for a long, LOOOOOONG time. wo/ details, this could very easily be the poison pill that holds every regular smoker to be continuously in a state of dui according to the law. that said… i might be ok w/ giving up driving if i could smoke legally.
Testing drivers for the presence or absence of inhaled or ingested cannabis is utterly illogical as the residue of cannabis consumption, the metabolites, have no correlation to impairment.
Metabolites are temporarily stored in fatty tissue and released slowly (one of the reasons cannabis is not addictive). Metabolites are what is left over after the psychoactive effect has occurred. It is, as it were, blaming the smoke for causing the fire.
It is, in the words of retired head of Scotland Yard, Det Chief Super Eddie Ellison (LEAP.CC) “the logical equivalent of licking someones exhaust pipe to see if they had been speeding yesterday”.
Testing drivers for the presence or absence of inhaled or ingested cannabis is utterly illogical as the residue of cannabis consumption, the metabolites, have no correlation to impairment.
Metabolites are temporarily stored in fatty tissue and released slowly (one of the reasons cannabis is not addictive). Metabolites are what is left over after the psychoactive effect has occurred. It is, as it were, blaming the smoke for causing the fire.
It is, in the words of retired head of Scotland Yard, Det Chief Super Eddie Ellison (LEAP.CC) “the logical equivalent of licking someones exhaust pipe to see if they had been speeding yesterday”.
Blood testing would be the most accurate of the invasive testing methods, because THC does leave the blood relatively quickly. But roadside blood testing just isn’t going to happen.
Cognitive and motor ability tests have long been thought the best way to test for marijuana impairment. Something similar to a roadside sobriety test.
Dominic says this measure has union support. But my union has pretty strict drug testing policies. Even if this passes, I’m pretty positive they will have no problem with my employer firing me on Wednesday for smoking weed on Saturday.
Legalize drugs? Tax the weed? But Wall Street would loose out on the 7-bil in laundered drug profits by using the government to keep all drugs illegal while the CIA smuggles them into the country.
It seems that the prohibition on driving under the influence duplicates present law, and will be difficult to enforce/ lead to the same invasive police practices that exist presently. Wouldn’t decriminalizing (i.e. making possession an infraction instead of a misdemeanor) have the same positive results, but without creating a bureaucratic regulatory system?
Re price questions.
You can purchase pounds directly from growers for $2000 (this is cheap end, but shows that even at this price they’re making a profit — often substantial).
This works out to $125/oz, $31.35/qtr, or $15.63/8th.
In the illustration above there are three steps where a 25% markup (tax) happens.
So let’s start with an 8th (rounding all numbers).
15.63+3.91=19.54
19.54+4.89=24.43
24.43+6.11=30.54
So under the scenario here an 8th ends up being roughly $31 or about $9 less than what seems to be a typical price for very good quality 8ths in Seattle these days.
And that’s assuming a starting price of $2000/lb, which I think could come down.
But the more important point is that people are already willingly paying $40 per 8th in an illegal and risky environment. This sort of scheme is exactly what is needed to undercut and help drive out the black market.
Switching gears from price to politics. Alison (who is one of the smartest, most savvy people on the planet), mentions “progressive organizations”.
I really hope it doesn’t get overlooked in the campaign for this initiative that the left/right (or conservative/liberal) divide over pot is in some circles a thing of the past (as in 60s-70s past).
As Ed Abbey noted 30 years go, free love meant even cowboys could get laid for free.
And lots of cowboys smoke pot. I know that the plural of anecdote is not data, but I’ve spent a shit-ton of time in rural and/or blue collar America and am amazed at how deeply pot-culture has permeated it.
Hipsters, jam banders and city kids joke about “it’s 4:20”. In blue collar America it’s known as the “safety break” and on job sites throughout the US, redneck, gun toting, beer swilling and conservative voting (when they bother) grunts regularly take afternoon safety breaks where they pass the dutchie on the right hand side.
I was talking with a group of roofers on their safety break one afternoon. They were all in favor of Reagan’s re-election (my guess is none of them actually voted) and thought pot should be legal.
Lifetime members of the NRA smoke pot.
Ever been to Sturgis? Eighty percent of the folks there are knuckle dragging neaderthals. And except for the Christians and cops, they all smoke dope (and even some of the C&C do). Next to Budweiser, bud is the most common drug of choice
At least two very conservative republican members of the WA house smoke pot (and one of them is total wake and baker when the leg is not in session).
Fuck, even Ann Coulter. She loves the Grateful Dead and doses.
This is an argument we should win hands down if played right.
@36
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16874…
“Topical cannabinoid agonists represent an new effective and well-tolerated therapy for refractory itching of various origins. Creams with a higher concentration may be even more effective with broader indications.”
IE: Skin disorders can be easily treated with cannabis lotions and oils.
It’s cute that the scientist who ran that study think it’s “new”.
Current law does ban driving while under the influence of (“affected by”) MJ, just like for any other drug (legal or illegal). It is not so easy to determine who is actually “affected by it,” as there is no generally accepted level of THC that indicates impairment. A test of reaction time or some other measure of performance would be far better than a per se THC limit, in my opinion.
The test does require a blood draw but that is no different from a case where the police suspect you of being under the influence of any other drug. The methods used to test blood for drugs are far more accurate and better controlled than the breath test for alcohol (which is approximate at best) as well. Both THC and carboxy-THC (a inactive metabolite) are reported in a drugscreen. You can distinguish recent use from use in the past by looking at the relative levels of the two.
@45 great points. As to the $2000 a LB price I think that it a great starting point. A grower with a 500 sqft operation can easily make 100k a year in sales. 5k for equipment startup, 5k for power and they just made 90k in profit. This doesn’t take into account the labor involved, or the risk of legal prosecution, but that is what most of the wholesale markup is. So if we really took a look at where the money would go at the wholesale level, I think it would be reasonable to say that the price comes down to the 12-1500 dollar level with the removal of the “I could go to jail for this” markup. The cost coming down at this level of the market will do nothing but drive people out of the black market and into the regulated market.
Or more simply put, if it was legal to do, I would be starting my growing business tomorrow selling at those rates. A grower with some knowledge and a legal buyer could make 75-100k a year without breaking a sweat. That is quitting my corporate job type money. See, on top of everything else, I just created a good paying job for some un/under employed person!
Since everyone’s so keen on prices, I wonder if they’re factoring in the risks that go along (at various levels) with buying off the black market.
Two really bad things are in this new law:
Limiting possession to just one ounce. By setting limits on how much cannabis people can have doesn’t this initiative only continue prohibition? Right now the limit that delineates a misdemeanor from a felony is 40 grams, which is about an ounce and a half. So the police will still have a right to search you to determine whether you have 28.4 grams or less? Will you be arrested for having 30 grams? Will police tools of the trade have to include scales?
I say make it 100 grams – that’s more than enough for any stoner and plenty less than anyone would want to try and distribute.
The second problem I see is trying to to make driving stoned a new class of DUI. Blood tests can’t tell you whether the person is stoned, only whether pot is in the system. Pot’s half life is 30 days. You could get stoned last week and test positive today. Again, this section of the initiative only increases the criminalization of pot consumption. If a cop forces an auto operator to give blood every time he/she smells pot in a car then we won’t be saving any money from police and court services at all.
Both these issues continue the criminalization of smoking pot and could actually increase the monies spent by law enforcement and our courts.
If you really believe that marijuana should be legal, please DO NOT sign this. This is worse than settling. Unless I am able to “grow my own”, marijuana will still be illegal, in my eyes at least.
What I have been waiting for since the first day I got high was to sit on my front porch, IN PUBLIC, and smoke pot. This does not allow for that. Anything less that that is still prohibition, in my book.
@52 How many years did it take after the prohibition of alcohol to be able to brew your own beer? Decades. How many years did it take to be able to walk down the street with a beer – oh wait, that’s still illegal.
Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Society moves in slow steps, and big change scares people. This is as big of a change as I can imagine us passing right now. If this bill fails, nobody’s going to say it failed because it was too stringent – people will believe we don’t want legalization.
After this bill – long enough after that you can pick up a pack of Camel Green at the corner store, and people complain about the high price of pot taxes – people will demand fewer restrictions. Then your dream will come true. But this bill can be the path to your dream.
artificially restricting access to commodity only increases its value. by doing so, it creates the environment where artificial value is created from nothing, and every one wants a piece of the nothing. the state, the “organized crime”, the “growers” … all need their cut to validate their position in a chain. it should be no different than the “local food” movement.
news flash. NW herb production has been awesome for 30 years. we have a distribution system. the kid in the jetta. (who pays less for “overhead” than some dispensary with building and staff costs, AND comes to your door).
it already benefits the economy and is taxed indirectly. growers spend huge amounts of electricity, rent, groceries, construction supplies, small businesses, etc.
by centralizing access, either actually, or conceptually … it offers nothing but a huge target for exploitation.
grow your own. keep your mouth shut. share with your friends. let them tax something else, like a stadium.
ps. I took my driving test stoned. have driven stoned almost every day of my life, have a PERFECT driving record, and have driven for over 20 years like that. THC has markedly different effects than booze, particularly concerning motor coordination and reaction time.
tolerated, not regulated.
and y’all can sign whatever.
i grow for the lord.
Ok… everyone who is complaining that “growing your own” wouldn’t be legal under this initiative needs to take a step back and think this out for a second.
That part of the initiative isn’t about you– it’s about export. If the state were to allow private, unlicensed grow ops, Washington state would immediately become a mecca for people looking to grow here, privately and quietly and with little risk, in order to export in quantity to other states where prohibition is still in effect.
Now remember, a big part of the support for this isn’t from people who smoke weed, it’s from people (like me) who don’t smoke, but who would love to get rid of the black market/criminal aspect and the absurd number of arrests for possession. But encouraging people who are looking to export will just bring organized crime operations to the state. It would also probably trigger a backlash that will see a huge spike in federal drug enforcement in the state. Those should be things that no one wants.
Will it be legal to grow your own eventually? Probably. But until it’s legal nationally, it would be bad politics and bad policy.
Sometimes things have to be done incrementally in order to work. Please don’t kill a good thing just because you aren’t getting your entire wish list right away.
@54 and @56 Good points.
Guaranteed content and quality will be another upside of legalization. Brand names will force quality and pricing competition. You’ll be able know where your weed is coming from, what chemicals were or weren’t used in the production, the high type, the quality, organicness, etc. A black market is never good for consumers at any level. Do you know what you are smoking today? Unless you are growing it yourself or getting it from a friend you have no idea what’s in that bag.
As for the naysayers here: how many of you are growers or dealers who don’t want to lose your jobs? Not surprisingly, with the CA initiative some of the strongest resistance was in Humbolt Co. where the main economy is growing. I’m nearly 60 and I’ve been waiting for this since 1969. Don’t let your greed fuck it up for me now!
We seem to be profiting from Colorado’s experience. Here’s a blog from a CO resident about the transition from a wild west free pot market to a regulated one. It’s part 2 of a post but it has links to the first part. Very interesting, and comparable to what seems to be being proposed here. http://saradavidsonblog.blogspot.com/
Re: the DUI portion of the initiative, and the science behind it.
So I’ve had a chance to look into the initiative a little more. Per NAW’s site http://newapproachwa.org/content/initiat…
the cutoff for pro se DUI will be a blood concentration of 5 ng/ml THC.
A few points:
1) That the cutoff is based on blood levels of THC (NOT metabolites) is a good thing. A lot of people here have made reference to the fact that “pot stays in your system for a long time” which is true, but an incomplete description of what actually happens. THC is stored in fat tissues and slowly released into the bloodstream over time, but is metabolized relatively quickly (half life on the order of hours). The problem with most employment screens is that they test for metabolites, which are around for a (relatively) long time because of the slow release of THC from fat.
What matters with regard to (possible) impairment is how much THC is in your blood when you are driving.
2) As I predicted, the cutoff of 5 ng/ml is fairly conservative. BUT, it isn’t off the charts ridiculous. (I was worried it would be 1 ng/ml, which is barely above the detection limit of most assays, and is the standard in some jurisdictions.) *Most* casual smokers’ blood levels will be below this level after a few hours, unless you smoke a whole lot.
However, chronic heavy smokers who have been studied can have levels above 5 ng/ml after several days’ abstinence. They are outliers, but they do exist. One example of a study showing this is here:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19874…
(the actual article is behind a subscription wall, which I have access to but cannot share. This is the abstract. There are others.)
3) The science linking measurable impairment to any particular blood level is shaky at best. It is definitely not as predictive as it is for alcohol.
4) I’ll still support this measure because I think it constitutes a massive step forward. However, I remain troubled by the pro se DUI portion of it. Particularly because it is VERY unlikely that the cutoff would ever go up, and could very well end up going down as a concession.
Ever heard of Sensible Washington?How ’bout Inititative I-1149?It exist for THIS YEAR.Why wait?This state blows.
As a proud SPOG member…. I cannot wait to fire up a doobie the second I get home from work….. Hell yes…. and while at a Dept. function lighting up a bowl and blowing smoke in Diaz’ face…….. bring it on!!!! Can’t wait to be high and packing heat!!! Fuck yes!!! Thank you whack jobs… I finally agree with you!
So, are cops gonna be allowed to draw blood at any traffic stop? Will there be anti-pot sobriety checkpoints? Will suspicion of being high (rather than tired or sick or stressed or whatever else may be afflicting you) be enough probably cause for a blood test against your will?
Even though I am pro-legalization, this does need review.
yeah such techonology exist for DUI-like, but except the limit they wanted to set was just ridiculous low. like .05 nanogram (someone wanted to motion this bill at Co med marijuana law)
problem w that is it stay in our body longer than alcohol and they could just thrown us in jail for something we did night before. many of us have habit of chronic use and statistic was obvious that marijuana smoker are by far the most safest driver than sober, even drunk people who smoke weed doubled their chance to have their ass saved on the road.
also what bother me most about this effort of legalize is treat it complete like alcohol for the age. it only send message that marijuana = alcohol and anyone younger than 21 doesn’t have healthy access when they need safest med the most. since painkiller we’ve been feeding them does more damage and it’s perfectly all right. This was reason why California voted no for similar bill; it going to cause more damage than it helps due to age restrict (felony for giving to someone younger than 21)
If they put some of that money toward Education and our schools, then I’m all for it.
Those of you who are wondering about price should also consider quality. Remember, illegal pot bought on the street can be cut with all kinds of nasty crap, and you have no guarantee that you are getting what the dealer says you are getting. Under a legal and regulated market, there will be no toxic cutting agents and you will know that you are getting exactly what it says on the package.
@12- sorry, didn’t check back. This was pulled from SAMHSA federal database of prevention science and reserch.
“The impact of prohibition was also different from the conventional view. An initial period of effectiveness in 1919–22 was followed by widespread violation in 1925–7. But effectiveness varied according to the local situation, and the automatic connection with the growth of criminal activity cannot be fully substantiated. There was widespread corruption and gang warfare in American cities before 1910. ‘Alcohol and Al Capone’ were nevertheless connected: criminal elements did organize and exploit the liquor business. However, the central criminal-directed activity was gambling, not liquor. Prohibition was, contrary to received opinion, effective, and this may be measured through figures for direct and measurable effects of alcohol consumption — arrests for drunkenness, hospital admissions for alcoholism, and death rates for cirrhosis of the liver all declined.
Consumption figures also provide a measure of effectiveness. Recent calculations reinforce much earlier estimates that liquor consumption dropped to about a third of preprohibition levels in the early 1920s”
@65
You were in the DARE program, huh?
Jesus. All the people talking about getting black market pot that’s been “cut” are fucking retards. What, exactly, would you cut the pot with that would be both cheaper than the pot itself AND undetectable to the person buying the pot? The correct answer is “nothing”.
Like every other marijuana-related initiative, this one (and the arguments for it) are dishonest. But then, American politics is rife with dishonesty, so what’s new?
For starters, it’s not legalization if possession is limited to an ounce and self-growing is illegal. It’s limited decriminalization.
If this regime were to come into being, the first thing to go would be the prohibition on growing your own. It would fall of its own weight, considering that an ounce now costs $250 to $300 versus growing one’s own for next to nothing.
You won’t be able to stop the gardeners. The only thing keeping it from happening on a wide scale now is the general illegality of marijuana. Make the use legal, and the sale open, and a clamor will arise. There won’t be any strong arguments against it, and that prohibition will fall apart.
At that point, the price of marijuana will collapse, and so will tax revenues. The Stranger’s estimate of $200 million in new revenues is ludicrous to begin with, but once people can grow their own the revenues will round down to zero.
So forget about this being a tax vehicle. It will not happen.
p.s.: Take a look at California’s referendum on legalization. It was defeated by large percentages in Mendocino and Humboldt counties, the major pot growing areas of the state. The growers there know exactly what would happen, and they definitely don’t want the competition.
p.p.s.: Look at comment #56. It’s pretty astute, and shows that this initiative is a stalking horse for the real thing. By itself, it’s not serious. It reminds me of Obama’s modified limited hangout on gay marriage, or of Reagan’s promise to increase military spending, cut taxes, and balance the budget.
I’ve always thought that the voting public pretty much demands to be lied to. This initiative is a very good example of it.
#46, marijuana use is much, much less common than alcohol use. Among teenagers, it’s half as common as drinking. In college, it’s one-third or one-fourth as common as drinking. Once people get out of college, marijuana use drops to less than one-tenth that of alcohol among people 35 and older.
It’s not the everyday activity that you portray it to be. Here are the statistics, if you have the courage to read them and the integrity to be honest about what they say.
Also read comment #6. Given the low production costs, in a legalized environment with much of the stigma removed, private dealers will easily undercut the government. The public will be on their side.
The inevitable result of legalization will be far lower prices — one-tenth of today’s — and much wider use. I think legalization is inevitable. In an unfolding society characterized by permanent unemployment of 20%+ and a steady shrinking of the social safety net, it’s very much in corporate interests to keep a whole lot of people whacked out of their gourds.
“The backers aren’t a bunch of stoners. In addition to Holmes (an elected prosecutor), cosponsors include… and PBS travel host Rick Steves”
I was at an event last year and Rick Steves admitted that he used cannabis. So does that mean some users are stoners and others are not?
Btw one of the worst things about this is that those under 21 will still have a government boot on their necks. This is a larger problem for members of the state’s minority communities and low income youth than well off white kids.
@74 – I get the impression “stoner” is used here as roughly the equivalent of “drunkard” or “alcoholic”. But I hardly claim to be an expert on the lingo.
@66: “Prohibition was, contrary to received opinion, effective, and this may be measured through figures for direct and measurable effects of alcohol consumption — arrests for drunkenness, hospital admissions for alcoholism, and death rates for cirrhosis of the liver all declined.”
The harm caused by Prohibition and the Drug War BY FAR outweighed cirrhosis.
Besides, what your stupid comparison neglects is the vast drop in cirrhosis, arrests for public drunkenness, and hospital admissions for alcoholism when marijuana is legalized.
Your temperance failed. Your numbers are willfully ignorant to any of the glaring externalities that made prohibition a failure.
People are getting murdered worldwide for this, as they were massacred under prohibition.
@Jake Snake comment #69: It’s very easy to brew your own beer, so why isn’t Budweiser out of business? It’s not as simple as just planting some seeds and sprinkling water to grow marijuana properly. There will definitely still be a market and resulting tax revenue due to the ease and convenience of buying vs growing.
@72: I just graduated college and let me tell you that those statistics are probably very far from the truth. Remember that people have to be honest for them to actually mean anything. Of course people are going to be more honest about alcohol use because it is not an illegal substance, but marijuana? Not as likely.
Hello Mexican drug cartels…they will be across the border in seconds to control the MJ business just like they do in their own country with corrupt ruthless vicious violence. In other words, a bloodbath coming to a neighborhood near you…
When it takes +/- 90 days to cultivate a MJ garden and under 9 minutes to just go to the store to pick up a pack of joints or a carton of cookies, which do you think most people (usually lazy) will do? Taxes will be big.