Yesterday, legislators around the state held town hall meetings. I’ve lived in the 5th Legislative District for a year now – and expect to live here for many more – and thought it was a good time to actually hear what my state representatives are up to. I showed up at 10am at the Maple Valley Community Center. Glenn Anderson and Jay Rodne (my two Republican state reps) were just starting to speak to a crowd of about a dozen people.

The meeting started off with Anderson talking about the budget difficulties. As you’d expect, Anderson and Rodne believe that our budget problems are related to Democratic overspending (something that Goldy has repeatedly pointed out is not true). One particularly interesting accusation that they made was that the cuts to the budget this year were specifically put in areas that would be most painful (health care and education) in order to scare people into raising taxes in a November referendum. Rodne seemed to believe that we could’ve balanced the budget merely by cutting L&I and the Department of Ecology. That sounded like the equivalent of folks saying that we can eliminate the federal budget deficit by cutting NPR and arts funding, but I’ll let my wonkier friends evaluate that claim.

Anyway, Rodne then asked for a show of hands on who in the room wanted to solve the budget problems by raising taxes. My hand went up and about half the room uneasily raised their hands half-way up with some uncertainty. Rodne then asked me if I was a firefighter (what?). I said no. He asked if I was a public union worker. I said no again, somewhat perplexed by his questions.

The meeting continued on. The political affiliation of the attendees wasn’t overly obvious, except for one gentleman wearing a Republican pin on his jacket. I was expecting it to be largely a conservative crowd, however it was probably closer to 50-50. Either way, it was a small crowd. At one point, the older couple in front on me, who had both worked in the public sector, spoke up to challenge some of the prevailing anti-union rhetoric coming from the front of the room.

The husband (who actually was a firefighter) got somewhat agitated with Rodne in what was the only really tense part of the entire meeting. I spoke up to defend him – primarily because Rodne was attempting to claim that the budget problems we have aren’t related to nationwide problems in the economy, which is absurd. Rodne once again asked if I was a firefighter. This time I more fully elaborated on the fact that I’m a private-sector employee. In response to me, Anderson actually put together a somewhat rational response.

Rodne then asked the room if they agreed with what was happening in Wisconsin. I saw only 2 hands go up, although a gentleman in the back spoke up saying he didn’t understand what Rodne was asking. It’s possible that some in the room thought Rodne was referring to what the protesters were doing, but Rodne seemed genuinely surprised not to see a roomful of hands go up.

Well, my son is waking up now, so I’ll try to wrap this up. At the end of the meeting, I went up to speak to Anderson about my pet pieces of legislation, the drug law reform measures currently making their way through the legislature. I asked him if he was going to support the legalization bill, which would add hundreds of millions of dollars to the state budget, lower crime, and protect families. He first copped to having been a ‘head’ back in the day and said he could potentially support the medical marijuana bill, but couldn’t support HB 1550. I asked him why and his response was that there were soccer moms, and “that gateway thing”, and because meth was really, really bad. So after an hour long town hall of two Republican legislators accusing Democrats of playing politics instead of dealing responsibly with the state budget, it took me roughly 15 seconds to get Anderson to do the same.

Last night, I facilitated the Cannabis Defense Coalition’s March Public Meeting. It was the largest public meeting I can remember, primarily because of the continued erosion of the medical marijuana bill that’s been making its way through the legislature. A number of amendments have been tacked onto the bill that have drawn concerns from patients to health care professionals to business owners to even some city governments. A few of the issues involved (in no particular order):

– Extra language added to section 301 would give the state incredible power to target health care professionals who provide health care authorizations. These restrictions were designed to target what’s become seen as the stereotype of the “pot doctor”, but they go way too far in several other ways and would actually endanger both patients and the numerous health care professionals who provide legitimate authorizations. For example, if a patient was diagnosed with cancer by one doctor and referred to a specialist, that specialist could come under fire for authorizing medical marijuana.

– Arrest protection was removed for people who aren’t signed up in a state registry database, which might not be completed for several years. This means that individuals with valid authorization forms in their possession could still be arrested. If this isn’t fixed, it’s likely that the various constituents lobbying for this bill will demand that the bill be removed. This is clearly a deal-breaker.

– An added clause regarding medical marijuana advertising is also very controversial. UW law professor Stewart Jay says it’s unconstitutional, and several members of The Stranger were present last night, as this issue could significantly impact their advertising business.

– State cooperative grows are now limited to only 3 people and 45 plants. The original bill had the limit of 25 people and 99 plants (99 plants keeps it under a particular federal plant limit). This provision is more important for the rural parts of the state where a dispensary may not be nearby. One person suggested 6 people and 90 plants, which I thought was an acceptable compromise. Others might still think that’s too few people.

– There was a lot of confusion about whether dispensers and growers would be protected if a system for licensing them wasn’t set up by July 1, 2012, as specified in the bill. This concern was brought up by Steve Sarich, and few other people in the room seemed aware of this issue. It seems to be a conclusion he arrived at by reading through the fiscal note for the bill. The lobbyist for the Washington Cannabis Association, Ezra Eickmeyer, was also in the room and seemed to think it was worth looking into.

– In the original bill, state pre-emption made it so that localities would only be able to implement zoning restrictions around dispensaries, but couldn’t outlaw them entirely. That’s been changed to allow local areas to establish their own limits. In California, it’s done this way and it’s led to a fair bit of chaos. In fact, Eickmeyer noted that a number of cities were in favor of the original language and are working closely with proponents of the bill to make sure we get this right.

– Language that imposed penalties on law enforcement or other government officials for divulging the private information in the state patient registry was removed. There were concerns that without a deterrent, it would lead to violations.

Also mentioned last night was something that I haven’t seen reported in the press. HB1550, the full legalization bill that would allow for regulation and sale to adults in the state’s liquor store system, was advanced in the House by Speaker Chopp marking the bill NTIB (“Necessary To Implement Budget”). Only a handful of people were aware of this, so I don’t have any more details, but it’s a good sign that Speaker Chopp is starting to recognize the value that a bill like this has at a time when budgets are tight.

UDPATE: Eli Sanders was present at the meeting and posts up a recap.

UDPATE 2: Audio of the meeting is available here.

Last week’s contest was won by Liberal Scientist. It was the party villa of Silvio Berlusconi in Arcore, Italy, where the Prime Minister’s bunga-bunga parties have gotten him in a bit of trouble.

Here’s this week’s view, from a random location:

The past few hours in Tripoli have been noisy with the sounds of gunfire. Up until now, Gaddafi had lost most of the country but still maintained control in the capital and his hometown of Sirte. Libyan TV has been broadcasting that a number of cities were retaken by Gaddafi’s forces today, but other news outlets have shown those claims to be fiction. Zawiyah, west of Tripoli, was still being held by anti-regime protesters despite several very violent attacks.

Libyan TV is also claiming that the gunfire is the result of pro-Gaddafi folks celebrating, and the Al Jazeera correspondent on the ground concurred that it’s coming partially from regime supporters who actually believe that government forces have re-taken opposition-held cities and are marching on Benghazi. But she also reports that there’s more going on than just the celebrations, and it’s possible that there are some actual gunbattles in the city between pro- and anti-Gaddafi forces.

Everything points to the fact that the noose is still tightening against Gaddafi and his supporters. It would be fitting to see his insane rule end as his supporters celebrate victory in the parallel universe they’ve constructed for themselves. Al Jazeera has a good live blog of Sunday’s events. And their English live feed is here.

– The video in this post from Glenn Greenwald, showing a flag-filled rally of morons shouting racist slurs at Muslim families attending a charity event, is the most disturbing thing I’ve seen in a while:

– Another Friday in the Middle East and North Africa means another day of demonstrations. The AP has a roundup here.

– The State Senate passed the medical marijuana bill SB 5073, but with some additional amendments.

– Today at the Seattle Times building on John St, there’s an all-day protest against the Drug Czar’s apparent attempt to put pressure on the Times for their endorsement of an end to marijuana prohibition.

UPDATE: I was down at the Seattle Times building around lunchtime today. The rumor going around was that the meeting with Kerlikowske was at 2:30, although it was never confirmed and I had to leave before then. The Times has so far today only put out a short piece from the AP [emphasis mine]:

Pro-marijuana protesters in Seattle are telling White House drug czar Gil Kerlikowske to “get with The Times.”

The group rallied outside as Kerlikowske met Friday with the editorial board of The Seattle Times, which recently endorsed marijuana legalization.

Kerlikowske is the former Seattle police chief who now heads the Office of National Drug Control Policy. He says chronic marijuana use is linked to mental illness and other health problems, and argues that legalizing cannabis would not be the cure-all proponents make it out to be because the black market would adapt to offer tax-free marijuana.

Of course! Just like how our city is besieged by gangsters who sell us tax-free whiskey and rum. At a certain point, you almost have to feel sorry for poor old Gil.

As the big meeting between Obama’s Drug Czar (and former Seattle Police Chief) Gil Kerlikowske and the Seattle Times editorial board approaches tomorrow, the Times is hosting a live chat today at noon to debate the topic of marijuana legalization. While Ryan Blethen explained that feedback to their editorial stance has been both overwhelming and positive, they’re still very willing to have a debate about it.

To that end, they published an editorial from Patti Skelton-McGougan, the director of Youth Eastside Services. And if this is the best the prohibition-backers can come up with, they’re in worse shape than I thought:

AS we consider the legalization of marijuana, we must bear in mind the impact on our youth. Politics aside, the legalization debate is sending a confusing message that’s contributing to a rise in marijuana use among teens.

There’s absolutely no evidence supporting this assertion. Drug use rates have gone up and down periodically over the years and we’ve been having a debate over legalization for a long time. In fact, the enactment of medical marijuana laws led to decreases in teen marijuana use across the country. But at that time, we were told the same thing. We were told that medical marijuana laws send a confusing message to kids about the dangers of marijuana and that would lead to greater use. It was wrong then, and it’s still wrong today.

In the Seattle Times’ Feb. 20 editorial calling for the legalizing of marijuana and Editorial Page Editor Ryan Blethen’s Feb. 27 column, the potential impact on youth was blithely dismissed.

I thought that the Times editorial could’ve been stronger on one particular point. Legalizing and regulating marijuana will have a positive impact on the youth in this state. As has been pointed out millions of times, teenage marijuana use rates in Holland (where sales to adults have been allowed for over 30 years) are much lower than in the United States. A big reason for this is exactly the reason why Skelton-McGougan’s logic in her opening paragraph is wrong. In Holland, marijuana is far less glamorous. It’s not associated with teenage rebellion the way it is here. Claiming that marijuana is far more dangerous than it really is only taps into the teenage tendency to rebel. That’s especially true when most teenagers are smart enough to see with their own eyes that marijuana isn’t meth or heroin because they often see older siblings or other people they know using it and leading normal lives.

Beyond that, the Times editorial did provide some good points on the policy impacts for youth. Marijuana prohibition leads to increased involvement in the criminal justice system and exposure to gangs. And young people with marijuana convictions can lose out on scholarship money and other benefits that can radically alter their future prospects in life. It’s never good to see anyone under 18 using marijuana. People who start using it before they reach adulthood increase their likelihood of developing destructive habits as they get older. But cutting off someone’s access to an education, or getting them involved in criminal activity is far more detrimental.

Finally, and maybe most importantly, there’s the question of access. The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University does an annual survey of teenagers and they consistently find that teenagers report that it’s easier to get marijuana than it is to get alcohol. Why? Because when you put control of an illegal commodity in the hands of criminal gangs, they generally don’t care whether or not the person buying it from them is over a certain age. If you want to reduce access to young people, a good start is by establishing a system that allows us to regulate its sale to those over 21. Currently, we have no way of doing that.

The people who are advocating for the end of marijuana prohibition are not “blithely dismissing” the impacts of such a move on our youth. They’re advocating for it because they know that it’s the best path forward for them. And there’s a mountain of evidence and even more common sense that points very clearly in that direction. I’ve probably written variations of this post a half-dozen times to various editorials and other outbursts of uninformed nonsense. And I’ll continue to do so until the baseless fear-mongering over “protecting our youth” is proven to be nothing more than uninformed attempts to prop up a failed policy that does exactly the opposite.

UPDATE: Well, that was interesting. It looked like there were a lot of participants in the discussion. Some interesting things to note:

– According to Ryan Blethen, the details of the meeting with Kerlikowske will be made public. In addition, Kerlikowske was expected to be out in Seattle anyway at this time.

– Stephen Bogan, a Therapist who was arguing to keep prohibition in place, made this interesting claim at the end of the session:

Most kids get pot and other drugs from their parents homes.

I’ve never seen any evidence that even comes close to supporting this claim, and after looking through some similar data in the CASA survey, it doesn’t even seem plausible. Has anyone heard this one before?

Bogan was quite vocal about his concerns over teenage drug use, but was never able to explain why he supports a policy that puts the distribution of marijuana in the hands of gangs and others who could care less about how young their customers are.

Steve Benen gives George Will some good advice about writing columns on subjects he doesn’t understand.

Last week’s contest was won by wes.in.wa. It was along Lake Sammamish.

Here’s this week’s, which is related to something in the news from February. Good luck!

Still a lot of activity on drug law reform in Washington state:

– The medical marijuana bill in the Senate, SB 5073, passed out of the Ways & Means Committee to the Rules Committee yesterday. There was one positive amendment, the elimination of the requirement that health-care providers provide quarterly reports of their authorization record and for patients to meet with their health care providers quarterly. But an attempt to restore arrest protection for those who refuse to sign up with the state registry failed.

– The Seattle Times has once again urged the legislature, and specifically House Speaker Frank Chopp, to hold a hearing on HB 1550, which would eliminate criminal penalties for marijuana possession and allow for sales through the existing state liquor stores. In response to the Seattle Times’ bold embrace of common sense solutions, Gil Kerlikowske (former Seattle Police Chief and now Obama’s Drug Czar) has requested a meeting with the Seattle Times editorial board.

– Sensible Washington has announced on its Facebook page that it’s re-filing their marijuana legalization initiative after initially receiving ballot language that they didn’t like. Sensible Washington hasn’t posted anything publicly as to why they didn’t like the ballot language or what (if anything) they’ve changed for their re-filing.

UPDATE: Ryan Blethen adds more thoughts on the reaction to the Seattle Times editorial that has the Drug Czar ready to fly across the country.

Remember this incident from last May?

Christine Casey, patient coordinator of North End Club 420, tells the Weekly that the detectives from the West Sound Narcotics Enforcement Team (WestNet) who came to her house in Olalla (west of Vashon Island) handcuffed her 14-year-old son for two hours and put a gun to his head. They also told the kid to say good-bye to his dad, Guy Casey, because the dispensary owner was going to prison.

And as the detectives looked for cash to prove that the dispensary was illegally profiting from pot sales, Casey says, they confiscated $80 that her 9-year-old daughter had received from her family for a straight-A report card. Where did they find it?

In the girl’s Mickey Mouse wallet, according to Casey. She also claims that the cops dumped out all her silverware, busted a hole in the wall, and broke appliances. She alleges too that the cops finger-wrote “I sell pot” in the dust covering the family’s Hummer, which the cops then seized. (WestNet did not return repeated calls seeking comment.)

At the time, I wrote:

Once again, WestNET is claiming that a “police operative” repeatedly bought marijuana from the Caseys without showing a medical marijuana authorization. The Caseys deny it. If the Caseys are telling the truth, it’s just another reason to put pressure on our state’s Congressional delegation to eliminate WestNET’s federal funding.

Today, the Tacoma News-Tribune reports what nearly everyone in the medical marijuana community has known for quite some time:

Pierce County prosecutors have dismissed numerous drug charges filed last year against two men who run a Tacoma medical-marijuana cooperative.

Guy Lewis Casey and Michael Jonathan Schaef – who operate the Club 420 cooperative on Oregon Avenue – had been scheduled for trial in April.

Deputy prosecutor Jennifer L. Sievers filed paperwork Tuesday dismissing the case, saying that after further investigation she had “doubts as to the veracity” of a confidential informant who fed information to police.

Just as with the Bruce Olson case, the WestNET drug task force used the word of an untrustworthy “informant” in order to justify their invasions on law-abiding members of the medical marijuana community. Again, it’s time for our representatives in Congress to ask why this group continues to receive federal funding in order to destroy the homes of innocent people and terrorize their families.

This video from CNN’s Ben Wedeman is a beautiful sight that many folks have waiting a long time for. Embedding is disallowed, but it shows a massive crowd in Benghazi, Libya celebrating their victory over Gaddafi’s hired mercenaries and other loyalists this past week. Wedeman compares the welcome he received to an American soldier arriving in Paris in WWII. It gives you an idea of how much it matters to countries like Libya when oppressive rulers aren’t able to operate in the dark.

Unfortunately, the capital Tripoli is still being fought over, with paid mercenaries terrorizing the city. But with much of the country already lost and many of his loyalists and allies turning on him, it’s just a matter of time before we see similar celebrations in Tripoli.

Now that Goldy isn’t the head honcho here any more, I think I’ll pick on him today. Over at Slog, he posts:

Following the success of last year’s local initiative outlawing red-light cameras in his hometown of Mukilteo, Eyman’s taking his latest for-profit/anti-government gimmick on the road. This year, he’s cosponsoring copycat measures in Bellingham, Monroe, Wenatchee, and Longview. But while Eyman provocatively characterizes the cameras as the “crack cocaine” of city budget writers and “taxation-­by-­citation, just another way for government to pick the pockets of taxpayers,” a definitive new study conducted by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) finds that red-light cameras save lives.

Comparing crash statistics between 1992–1996 and 2004–2008 in the 99 US cities with populations above 200,000, researchers found a 35 percent reduction in red-light fatalities in cities that implemented red-light-camera programs, versus a 14 percent reduction in those that did not.

But the cameras’ benefits actually proved to be much bigger. When all crashes at signaled intersections were tallied, not just those due to red-light running, total fatalities dropped 14 percent in cities with cameras, while rising 2 percent in cities without.

This should be fairly obvious, but the evidence described in the third paragraph doesn’t exactly bolster Goldy’s assertion. It’s proof that there are a number of other factors causing declines in vehicle fatalities other than what’s happening at red light camera intersections. These could be related to safer car construction, fewer miles traveled, changes to traffic patterns, or something else. If there’s a reduction of 14 percent in red light crashes in cities that didn’t implement red light cameras, then there are another explanations for the decline. And that explanation could perhaps also explain why there was a gap in the overall statistics from city to city.

Here’s a page from the National Motorists Association that criticizes other aspects of the study, and another page from them that details out some studies which have shown that red light cameras increase accidents.

The National Motorists Association is an organization with a strong bias in this matter, and they often play up the increase in rear-end collisions that are seen with the implementation of red light cameras, while ignoring the decreases in side-angle crashes (which are more likely to cause fatalities) from the very same studies. In the end, I think there’s a case to be made that red light cameras provide some benefit, although I find this study to be completely unconvincing in the effort of making that case. In fact, this part at the end of their press release gives you an idea of how little their numbers are actually telling them and how they understand them even less:

Results in each of the 14 camera cities varied. The biggest drop in the rate of fatal red light running crashes came in Chandler, Ariz., where the decline was 79 percent. Two cities, Raleigh, NC, and Bakersfield, Calif., experienced an increase.

“We don’t know exactly why the data from Raleigh and Bakersfield didn’t line up with what we found elsewhere,” McCartt says. “Both cities have expanded geographically over the past two decades, and that probably has a lot to do with it.”

But Chandler has easily been one of the fastest growing cities in the United States over the past 20 years as well. Why did it experience such a dramatic decrease in vehicle fatalities while Bakersfield and Raleigh saw increases? There are certainly reasons for it, but it should be evident that red light cameras aren’t one of those reasons. When looking at red light cameras and trying to figure out whether or not they work, any study that isn’t looking at specific intersections and comparing data isn’t really worth much in this debate.

Last week’s contest was won by 2cents. It was the convenience store in New Jersey that served as the location for the movie Clerks. Extra credit for milwhcky for reminding me that I’d posted it once before.

Here’s this week’s (from somewhere in Washington state), good luck!

It’s been a very violent day in Libya, with reports that dozens of anti-Gaddafi protesters have been killed in Benghazi, the country’s second largest city and the largest in eastern Libya. Just as in Egypt, Gaddafi has cut off the internet and is trying to limit communications. Even worse, Gaddafi appears to have paid for mercenaries from other African countries to come in and shoot at the protesters.

Unlike with Egypt, there are far fewer international journalists there to cover this, and while most of the activity on Twitter seems to be focused on eastern Libya, there are fewer reports of protests in the capital of Tripoli. It’s hard to know what to make of this, but with the dictators just to the west and east of Gaddafi already deposed, I’m starting to get hopeful that he’s next. Couldn’t happen to a bigger asshat.

The Seattle Times editorial board has come out with a very strong statement in support of ending marijuana prohibition. Their editorial from yesterday begins:

MARIJUANA should be legalized, regulated and taxed. The push to repeal federal prohibition should come from the states, and it should begin with the state of Washington.

This argument was made loud and clear by numerous folks in Olympia last week. State representatives, prosecutors, police officers, judges, doctors, and ordinary Washingtonians testified why it’s urgent for us to start treating marijuana the way we treat alcohol and pass HB1550. The Seattle Times reiterated those main points: the current policy wastes enormous public funds at a time when we can least afford it, it can unnecessarily derail opportunities for young people, it erodes our civil liberties, it fosters distrust of law enforcement, and it greatly benefits Washington’s gangs. The fact that it still continues is an extraordinary example of how propaganda and fear has been used to paper over what has been one of the biggest policy failures in America over the past 100 years.

It’s not clear what will happen to HB1550, as notorious drug warrior Christopher Hurst (D-31) remains in charge of the House Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Committee, but his extremism in pursuit of this disastrous policy is becoming more and more isolated in the general public. In the most recent survey conducted by the Economist, 58% of Americans support the idea of treating marijuana the way we treat alcohol. Only 23% disagreed. These numbers represent a sea change in public opinion on this topic, and one that too many of our politicians have not kept up with.

If the legislature doesn’t do it this session, the voters will do it on their own. Sensible Washington is gearing up for another shot at the ballot in 2011, and bigger drug policy organizations have their eye on a 2012 run. The choice that politicians have to make right now is not about whether marijuana should be treated the same as alcohol. The public has already made up their mind about that and every year that goes by just sees more and more young voters who support it and fewer and fewer older voters who don’t. The choice that politicians have to make is whether to set up legalized markets the way they want them to function, or to deal with legalized markets created by voter initiative.