Two big announcements over the past 48 hours regarding the eventual death of marijuana prohibition:
– For the first time ever, a bill to end marijuana prohibition is being introduced in Congress. Barney Frank and Ron Paul are introducing a bill that would allow states to make the drug legal, while only focusing on interstate smuggling. I doubt the drug will go anywhere, but it’s certainly a milestone that shows how quickly things are starting to change.
– Here in Washington, a group called New Approach Washington is launching an effort to pass a marijuana legalization initiative. The group is led by former U.S. Attorney John McKay, Seattle City Attorney Pete Holmes, and travel show host Rick Steves. The initiative represents the opposite strategy from what Sensible Washington has been trying to do with I-1149. While Sensible Washington focused on creating an initiative that puts the federal government in a difficult situation (by removing all state penalties), New Approach Washington focused on creating something that they feel is more certain to win a statewide vote.
As a result, New Approach Washington appears to have the big money necessary to get on the ballot. Their initiative is a different type of initiative, which once it collects the necessary signatures, goes directly to the Legislature first – who can pass it. If they don’t pass it, then it goes to a statewide vote in November 2012.
From what’s been released so far (I haven’t had a chance to read the text of the initiative yet), what they’ve put together is mostly workable, but has some drawbacks. For starters, private growing would become illegal (with an exception for medical growers). There’s no real rationale for this – establishing a personal cultivation limit would be smarter. This is like banning people from brewing their own beer at home.
Second, and more seriously, is their attempt to extend the DUI laws to marijuana. While this may play well politically, the science is not there yet to provide an accurate measurement of impairment. Even worse, people who have very high levels of THC in their system (usually people who use the drug medicinally), don’t become impaired at all when they use it. This was highlighted recently in Colorado when Denver Westword pot critic William Breathes tested nearly three times the 5ng/ml limit while completely sober.
As a result, I wouldn’t be surprised if much of the state’s medical marijuana community refuses to assist in this campaign. But if New Approach Washington is to be believed, they have the numbers to win anyway. And they probably do. Voters are ready to start treating marijuana like alcohol, and this initiative moves us a step closer to having an overly-regulated, somewhat-inefficient mess for providing the sale of marijuana to adults – just like what we have for hard liquor.
Two valid points. Why restrict personal growing. If this does become law, that’ll just get challenged anyway. There’s some notable SCOTUS case from back in the day about a guy challenging Prohibition on the grounds he was brewing liquor in his private home for private consumption, I can’t remember right now.
And Blood Tests? COME, ON! It’s like they’re trying to torpedo this thing outright or saying “You can smoke, but only THIS much.” I guess the obvious thing is exemptions for MMJ patients, which leaves recreational users at risk of prosecution, once again.
But I’m optimisitic. Washington State was the 1st to repeal Prohibition.
Wow…. Pass the screaming yellow zonkers, please.
Skousen @2…
I LOOOOOOOOVED those!
I’ve been working to get signatures on I-1149. I’ve been working for years to reform marijuana laws and find that it comes closer to what medicinal and recreational users have been hoping for.
I was a bit pissed off that this new legislation was coming out in competition for I-1149. The road ahead is hard enough for us without another bill essentially splitting the numbers.
Then I gave it some thought. Yes, they do have a better shot at getting it passed. Ours is the better bill but, in all reality, not in a good spot for getting on the ballot. We have the will, the energy, and the truth on our side. We just lack the numbers. Reality has a way of creeping up behind you and slap you upside the head.
So, perhaps this is the way it should go. Theirs is the bill that makes it to law. They get to spell out the first set of rules. They break the log jam and take the credit. Cool. I can hang with that. However, once that door is opened, then OUR numbers will matter. The medicinal and recreational users will act on any part of the new law that runs counter to what we want. Remember, it’s far easier to amend an existing law than to create a new one. We will succeed, prohibition will end sooner than later.
How long has John McKay been a pothead? He says he is not but I do not believe him.
Lee,
One issue that I haven’t read you comment on is the issue of Federal laws vs State rights/sovereignty.
Let’s say WA State was able to pass a law that legalized and de-criminalized marijuana, but marijuana was still a controlled substance under Fed law, with all the associated felonies, confiscations, “war on drugs”, etc.
I guess its implied that you believe that states have a right to pass their own laws that supersede Federal laws, but I don’t remember you actually saying it. Where would you stand on the “states rights” issue?
I support legalization and states rights to do so without intervention/prosecution from the Federal government.
I agree with Lee, but I have concerns from a health professional standpoint. With the taxes this initiative incurs on cannabis (25% at each:grower, distributor, retail) the markup will make legal cannabis unaffordable to patients. The sick, disabled and dying will suffer in the name of taxes, and that disgusts me. There are no provisions to protect cannabis patients, therefore the restrictions only further make it difficult for patients to procure their meds, unless they are able to grow. I know of many who cannot.
I also noticed that the initiative is extremely top-heavy with administrative needs, and includes input from no less than five different state agencies. The cost to put this initiative in place would land on the buyers, and again the sick, disabled and dying would suffer.
Nowhere in this initiative are the impacts to some of the most vulnerable adults addressed, and when questioned about this, New Approach chooses to ignore the issues.
For someone who is “on loan” from the ACLU, I’d say this is not only a scary initiative, I’d question the motives of the ACLU, the staff “loaned” for the initiative and any other organizations endorsing this travesty to patients. Why would they choose to make the sick, disabled and dying suffer even more? Was the 5073 fiasco not enough?
And I am only on page 23…..
I agree Mimi. I don’t think the ACLU is going in a good direction with this. We need to end prohibition of marijuana. We need to allow people to grow this themselves if needed. And we need to be able to farm it. It is a safe herbal medicine. It is safer than Aspirin. It is ridiculous that it has been illegal for so long. And we need to quit spending our taxes to prosecute and jail people who use this plant for medicine, or for recreational use. It is a waste of our minimal resources, and it is a giant hypocrisy. That is why I stand in support of I1149. Don’t give up on ending prohibition, it will happen!
Another concern is about pot smokers getting behind the wheel. Like the talking heads frontman, depending on the quality of the pot, you might well ask yourself at some time in the trip: ‘How did I get here?’
@6
Bruce Ramsey’s post touches on that, but it’s a big part of the differing approaches here. I-1149 would have been largely immune to federal interference. New Approach Washington’s would not be.
@7. Mimi spews:
—————————–
This is a nearly perfect example of liberal thinking in its purest form, that is to say, liberal female thinking. Whining, complaining, melodrama, and no solution offered. It would be perfect if only you would repeat the phrase “the sick, disabled and dying” a few more times. The post @4 demonstrates logical strategy; you however demonstrate two important points worthy of mention, Obama may have saved us from even greater damage by Hillary, and women should not vote.
Medical pot has enough trouble without help from you.
Thanks for the link, Lee.
But, I’m interested in where you stand on the Fed vs State’s rights issue. What is your position?
From #1:
“But I’m optimisitic (sic). Washington State was the 1st to repeal Prohibition.”
I certainly hope you’re right about the prohibition against cannabis! Maybe the combination of Barney Frank and Ron Paul will cause those stubborn dolts to realize that the laws against cannabis are outdated. foolish, and an assault on personal freedom. Let the states decide!
@12
My position is that I don’t like the fact that the federal government has the power to override states in an effort to curtail liberty. I believe they should only have the power to do so in an effort to protect liberty.
The Supreme Court doesn’t agree with that. They make no distinctions when it comes to why commerce is regulated the way it is, only that it’s being regulated. So we’re in a position where Washington could try to establish regulations for marijuana production and sale, and the federal government could come in and dismantle it by force. They’re using the same power they once used to force restaurants in the south to serve non-whites.
But in reality, the prohibition of marijuana is similar to the opposite situation, one where the federal government makes it illegal for any state to ban discrimination by a business (imagine a Congress full of Rand Pauls). In essence, they’re saying that a state is not allowed to expand freedom for individuals at the expense of various business interests. And they can hide behind the Commerce Clause to do this.