The Washington State Bar Association has endorsed a bill that would decriminalize simple marijuana possession, reducing the maximum punishment from the current $1000 fine and 90 days in jail, to a $100 ticket.
Well… um… yawn.
It’s not that I don’t support the WSBA’s resolution, it’s just that it’s hard to get excited about a half-measure that’s at least twenty years behind the times, and fails to take full advantage of a budget crisis that could force legislators to take a new and creative look at our state’s antiquated drug policies. For as I’ve previously argued, it’s time to fully legalize marijuana, and sell it through our state stores.
Other states may be further along the political path toward de facto legalization, but no other state, with the exception of my native Pennsylvania, has a more robust system already in place for effectively executing it. Washington already heavily regulates the in-state manufacture of wine, beer and distilled spirits, and maintains an extensive statewide network of retail stores and distribution centers for the sole purpose of operating its exclusive monopoly on the retail sale of liquor. A similar monopoly on the legal sale of marijuana would not only be easily implemented, but highly profitable for taxpayers and state farmers alike.
At an estimated street value of over $1 billion a year, marijuana is already Washington’s number two cash crop, second only to apples, and consistently ranking us among the top five pot-producing states. By legalizing and regulating a crop that is already being grown, the state could impose standards of consistency and quality on the product, and by setting prices as the only legal buyer for the crop, farmers could be assured a stable, legal income for their efforts.
And considering the existing federal ban on marijuana, and the federal government’s constitutional authority over interstate commerce, Washington’s State Stores, by necessity, would initially only be able to buy and sell state-grown product, thus nurturing a nascent hemp industry that would eventually produce a valuable export commodity once the ban is lifted nationally, perhaps even dominating the market.
According to the Office of Financial Management, decriminalizing marijuana could save state and local authorities as much as $16 million a year in law enforcement resources. But regulated growing, and a State Store monopoly, could contribute hundreds of millions of dollars to state and local coffers, with plenty left over to dramatically expand our treatment and prevention programs.
As Lee has extensively documented here on HA, our nation’s war on pot is an abject failure. It’s time for our nation to accept the reality that tens of millions of Americans choose to enjoy the recreational use of marijuana. And what better place to start than here in Washington state?
Oh… and before the trolls start in, let me be clear by reiterating that I don’t use pot myself. My advocacy for legalization is purely based on what I believe to be good, pragmatic public policy.
Likewise, I don’t use pot either, but it is long past time to legalize, regulate and tax this crop. As of August, the state liquor tax rate is 51.9% (http://liq.wa.gov/releases/pr090506-markup.asp). Even if the cost of pot dropped 50% after legalization due to lower production and legal costs for growers, at the liquor tax rate the state would still generate around $250 million/year in new revenue, plus the $16 million/year currently spent for enforcement. Not to mention the potential savings to the prison system if we also implemented some kind of amnesty and release for inmates now incarcerated for simple possession or distribution.
If Washington takes the lead, there will also be long-term collateral benefits to tourism (think Amsterdam), getting a headstart on hemp product manufacturing and the opportunity to set the standards for marijuana quality and production along the lines of Oregon’s organics certification program.
Yes it will create a massive federal headache, but I suspect that if Washington knocks down the door, California, Oregon, Hawaii and Iowa would pretty quickly follow suit. It’s time.
Goldy,
When Gregoire was on Weekday fairly recently (a month or two ago), a caller asked her about legalizing and taxing pot in Washington state.
Her response was that Washington state couldn’t do this under the existing federal laws. (That is, the laws would prevent even an in-house system.)
Is this true? Or was Gregoire using this as an excuse to avoid doing something that is politically challenging?
@2
Well there is also the possibility that consumption might increase if pot was legalized, possibly more than enough to offset the reduction in cost due to legalization. I certainly know a number of people who’d smoke much more than they currently do if a high-quality product was consistently available with no potential legal or adulteration issues.
Goldy if you don’t mind me asking what are you thoughts on legalizing other drugs?
I have been arguing this for years make it like a speeding ticket.
@3
I don’t doubt there are Federal laws that say the state really can’t do this. While the state might sue on 10th Amendment grounds Gonzales v. Raich and Wickard v. Filburn I’m guessing they would likely lose.
On the other hand a state openly challenging the Federal Government on marijuana laws might just be what is needed to force a change in current law.
Hey, there’s another Steve here!
I think it should be like wine and beer, which in this state you can buy at a store where it’s taxed or make at home with only your supplies being taxed. If we’re really free then we should be able to make or grow the beverage or smoke of our choice for our own comsumption. If you brew or grow something at home to sell, the state will tax you like they would any other business.
@3 I think Gregoire is right about the federal law, but like Chris says @7 somebody has to challenge the feds.
Barney Frank has introduced two pieces of legislation 1) to reclassify marijuana as the federal level as a Class II drug which would allow doctors to prescribe it and 2) a bill to eliminate federal penalties for possession of under 100g for personal use.
The second bill would still not allow the cultivation of pot, but if it’s reclassified and there are no penalties for minor possession, it could make the case for legalizing a state-run growing and distribution network.
Here’s a Huffington Post article about the Frank legislation: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/.....19263.html
Darryl @3,
There are federal laws that prohibit medical marijuana, yet the current administration has chosen not to enforce these. That said, Chris Stefan @7 is right… if enough states legalize marijuana in contravention of federal law, there will be more pressure on Congress to reform our federal laws.
Chris Stefan spews:
I’m sure you do Chris!
You are probably one of them….it just gets a bit confusing because…………ummmmmmmm…………ummmmmmmmmmmmmmm……….ummmmmmmmmmm
I’m glad your friends would smoke more Chris.
It’s very important to me.
and add to the bill a requirement that cashmere change street names from aplets way & cotlets drive to kaya way and diggity dank drive.
Mike Jones @5,
Unlike some others, I don’t come at legalization from a libertarian perspective, but rather from a utilitarian one. For example, it would be hard to argue for legalization of meth, which is a particularly addictive, dangerous and destructive drug.
So no, I do not support blanket legalization.
I smoke pot; I enjoy it. Making it legal won’t mean that I will smoke more, but it does mean that I won’t have to sneak around, and that I can have some confidence in the quality and purity of the product. I also think I should be allowed to grow a crop in my backyard if I so choose. It is a plant, after all, and it grows pretty well around here.
Legalize it!
Like Goldy, I think “marijuana” should be legalized BUT … I suspect Lee and Co mighht not be very comfortable with the approach I would take.
1. Would we legalize the plant or the active ingredient? There is a huge difference between legalizing a plant and legalizing THC (the active ingredient.)
If you make the comparison to booze, the difference is obvious. We do not legalize all booze, we legalize sale of beverages that contain a certain content of alcohol.
This control over content is perhaps more important for marijuana than it is for booze since the THC content of marijuana is effected by how the plants are bred while alcohol content can be adjusted by adding or subtracting ethanol.
If WA state legalized THC in the same way, the ONLY marijuana that could be sold would be that with a defined THC content. Moreover, I suspect many people would PREFER to get their THC in other ways … imagine Starbucks selling Hempbrew!
2. To avoid federal interference, the State Pot Board would need pretty strong regulatory and police powers.
Given the tenth amendment, it is difficult to imagine any interest of the Feds in sale of legal THC as long as the sale does not become interstate. To prevent that outcome, I would guess individual pot entrepreneurs would have to be very strictly controlled … to a point rivalling the kind of controls that are now freaking out Lee’s crew of medical mj providers.
This means strict laws about possession, resale, etc. I suspect it may also rule pout sale of imported pot! The same agribusinesses grwoing grapes in the Yakima would now have an even better crop!
13. Goldy MJ vs bad stuff
The truth is that there is no data behind claims that THC is any more harmful than many common drugs. THC content could be regulated in much the same way as we regulate caffeine, alcohol, and .. for that matter .. some vitamins that are toxic in high doses.
14. Mikek growing your own
Once THC is legal, the problem maybe with regulating personal growth of plants with illegally high content of THC.
Do you have e trouble imagining the current crew of pot heads accepting this sort of regulation?
Also, to what extent is pot satisfaction associated with the oral pleasure of suckling? What would happen if we legalized THC but made smoking pot illegal in the usual places?
It’s best to focus this on the $16 million saved on the state drug war, and not on some hypothetical $250 million of taxes. There’s no upside for the current growers in registering with the state and paying taxes. Instead there’ll be a massive shortfall of tax income from the unrealistic levels suggested here, and law enforcement funds will need to be spent much as they are now, looking for unregistered growers.
Registered growers will have to worry about the law changing from under them (via initiative, perhaps) and drawing large targets on their backs if it’s repealed.
New growers will have to make their way in an ongoing and very efficient market, unless you anticipate the market expanding, and that’s exactly what the opposition is suggesting will happen.
Legalizing this stuff would definitely have its benefits to society, but mostly from casual smokers not being hassled and jailed, not from generous numerical extrapolations divorced from social reality.
Just to make things really clear…
Check as many apply.
[ ] I do not currently smoke pot with or without lee.
[ ] I have never smoked pot.
[ ] I smoked once, but didn’t inhale.
[ ] I smoke only the best stuff.
[ ] I’ve smoked in the past for medical reasons.
[ ] I can’t remember.
[ ] I have never smoked. Wanna a brownie?
Just to clear up any confusion.
Here in lala land medical pot cards are easier to get than business cards.
Everyone of my friends that has bought a card IS smoking more.
If pot is the number #2 cash crop in this state, that pushes the next cash crop down to # 3: hops. So you could say that this state’s biggest agricultural products are apples, pot, and beer! With grape production rising fast, that means we might soon be producing apples, pot, beer, and wine!
I say we ought to dig out the apple orchards and raise Cheetos instead. We’d make a fortune!
(just joking – I know you don’t grow Cheetos. Its a play on that old April 1st joke about the spaggetti harvest in Italy).
Did anyone else notice that the lawyers are proposing a change in state law which would reduce the number of people needing their services?
@16
I was listening to a James Howard Kunstler podcast the other night where he said we should change our national motto to: “It’s the thought that counts.”
All we’re ever going to get from our current crop of political/social/business (non)leaders half measures and platitudes. It’s time for us to move on without them. It’s like the bumper sticker says: When The People Lead The Leaders Will Follow.
@20
Washington is already the second largest wine producing state in the US. CA is way out in front of us quantity wise, but we could pass them in quality in a few years.
@22
That was a general comment. I have no idea why I directed it at #16. And no, I’m not stoned.
@10
I’m also thinking the resulting Federal court cases might be interesting though I suspect the state would lose based on prior precedent. A case before the SCOTUS could apply pressure for congress to change the law.
Hmmm. . . Did Marvin just admit to associating with known criminals?
And, don’t you find it interesting that Marvin has a lot of “friends” with “chronic” medical problems that need MJ prescribed?
I’m just askin’ here, Marvin, are you now using marijuana?
And, have you used marijuana and/or other illegal drugs in the past?
@11
I don’t smoke pot, I just think making it illegal is rather dumb when both tobacco and alcohol are legal.
Besides why would you object to taxing a bunch of potheads for smoking pot?
@15
From the perspective of what would be legal under current Federal law it wouldn’t really matter if it was the marijuana plant that was legalized or THC. The problem is under Gonzales v. Raich there simply has to be the possibility something might enter interstate commerce for the Federal Government to have the authority to regulate it. This case is pretty clear precedent as it involves regulating medical marijuana under the Federal Controlled Substances Act.
@17
If the state sold pot in state liquor stores and only bought from registered growers why wouldn’t there be at least some revenue for the state involved?
I mean you can brew your own beer, make your own wine, or even grow your own tomatoes but most people choose not to and just buy at the store. Why should pot prove any different?
I support full legalization of marijuana. Prohibition has not yet ended, and it’s time it did.
The way to legalize marijuana is to start at the community level with small towns and communities declaring it legal and to hell with what other government thinks. Local cops would refuse to assist state and federal law enforcement in prosecuting marijuana cases and arresting folks for marijuana violations.
Then move to the state level – states openly disobeying the federal government. Eventually the whole house of cards against marijuana would collapse, and we would have legalization and sanity.
Legalize, regulate and tax – anything else is insanity.
They will also have to outlaw the absolutely worthless urine drug tests, which have never shown impairment in any way.
Big Brother won’t like that!
Can you imagine the outcry if they would have had a ridiculous urine test like this for alcohol during prohibition?
And unlike tobacco and alcohol, cannabis isn’t a deadly poison.
Look, anybody who wants to smoke pot now can get it, and can smoke to their heart’s content (if they have the funds). They just get it through illegal channels, and have to show a minimum of care when and where they smoke. Pot was ubiquitous at my kids’ high school, as of last year when my last offspring graduated. Not sure who the folks are who smoke more now that they have their medical cards, but the Netherlands, where pot is effectively legal, doesn’t have any higher rates of usage than we do. Besides, just like alcohol, tobacco, gambling, eating, and so on, some people will be unable to control themselves and have a problem. Most people, however, will not have a problem with controlling their pot smoking.
@29 Chris
It is important to realize that pot and THC are NOT the same thing, nor can pot be easily compared with tomatoes.
You eat tomatoes for their texture and taste.
You drink bear for both its alcohol and its taste.
We regulate alcohol content of beer, not its taste.
Legalizing THC as a food additive is VERY easy because one can then measure how much THC is in the brownies or the inhaler or whatever.
Legalizing pot is a bit more worrisome because there is no control over the content.
Moreover, smoked marijuans is likely as dangerous as smoked tobacco .. for the same reason, BOTH forms of smoke contain high level of known carcinogens.
So, if I had my druthers we would legalize THC as a food additive and legalize marijuana. Selling the latter would likely require a pricey license to assure the state that the THC content was not excessive.
@33 Mikek
I agree with most of what you say here .. controlling pot is not likely to be any worse than controlling tobacco.
That said, we do control tobacco because of the dangers of smoke.
28. Chris Stefan spews:
I am not so sure about this. The fed can not, for example, control the sales of fire works or tobacco on Indian reservations even though thise can obviously cross state lines.
The issue with THC vs MJ is that there is no evidence that recreational levels of THC cause harm, there is substantial reason to worry about recreational levels of inhaled MJ.
WTF An Arguement for State Pot Sales.
WTF would the feds do if a state decided to sell THC in a demonstrably safe form .. e.g. as brownies or as e-cigs?
Suppose there was a court order based on federal law declaring THC a controlled substance. Couldn’t the state challenge that law as being arbitrary?
BTW if THC IS a controlled substance, it would likely be fairly easy to make a related compound that could bind to the THC receptor. Would federal also ban this? BTW, my understanding is that one such cannabinoid is present in chocolate. If so, perhaps thew best strategy would be to pay a good chemist to purify that stuff and start selling it as Chocapot.
@18
If you’re confused, perhaps it is you that is stoned…
Goldy, it’s a good start, so at least see it for that.
And for anyone still wondering, the only reason MJ is illegal while tobacco and alcohol aren’t is because multi-billion-dollar corporations aren’t in the MJ business. Any idiot can grow weed, and that’s why it’s still illegal.
37:
A good idea would be to sell ganja butter.
House Bill 2401 introduced today in Washington State Legislature to legalize marijuana and treat it like liquor. 6 co-sponsors. Write your state rep. and ask them to co-sponsor and/or support!
bill text is here: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documen.....s/2401.pdf
Hopefully someone will ask the WSBA to endorse this piece of legislation as well.
Mr Cynical @ 11
In your libertarian utopia, who pays for the administration of elections and the courts?
Chris @ 4
Portugal decriminalized marijuana. Drug use declined.
I’d be thrilled to start with decriminalization. We’d save huge money. The street price would plummet. And as detailed in Freakonomics, that’d put the drug lords out of business.
I don’t yet know if I support legalizing marijuana in Washington, to treat it just like alcohol. What would that look like?
The state would then sell marijuana at their stores? Would marijuana need to be tested for safety and quality control? What would a consumer safety label for pot look like?
Etc.
Maybe start with a few pilot stores. See how it goes. Maybe the revenue would make the exercise worthwhile. Maybe not.
Marvin @ 18
Why do you care?
incorrect @ 30
Good strategy suggestion.
Goldy @ 13
On the utilitarian angle…
They’re now making meth ad hoc in the backseat of cars using 2 liter soda bottles.
The War on Drugs (nee Prohibition) has been utterly lost.
That meth is addictive, dangerous, and destructive is an argument to closely regulate it.
The current strategy of pushing it underground clearly hasn’t worked.
That’s the utilitarian argument.
@46
Would meth even be a problem if pharmaceutical grade amphetamines were widely available?
Most of the downsides of meth have to do with the activities its addicts and producers resort to in order to acquire or manufacture it. We never saw the sort of problems associated with meth with the abuse of prescription amphetamines.
Similarly most of the problems associated with oxycontin have more to do with addicts resorting to armed robberies of pharmacies to acquire it than with the addiction itself. In fact when given the choice most opiate addicts usually opt for heroin or morphine.
it’s half measures like this that make Democrats lose…the full measure is legalization with taxation….the half measure is like our bullshit health care reform w no real public option…it’s ridiculous to say pot should be subject to a fine, is jack daniels subject to a fucking fine? it’s just pure gutlessness and chichenshit cowardism, a fear of your own convictions.
fuck half those legislators smoked pot themselves and they keep people in jail for it? what a travesty, they have no shame at all.
met a guy last weekend who did seven years in jail for being a nonviolent pot dealer. Wow, great way to spend about $700,000 for his housing and guarding w full pensions etc. So smart. And guess what, he still tokes a bit, ohmygod. A very peaceful nonviolent person.
So we all want to be able to smoke it a bit knowing this infraction law will never be enforced on us….if you’re white…if your’e rich…but we are okay with the cops busting SOME people for dealing it.
What total gutless hypocrisy.
What criminals? With a medical card pot is legal, no laws are being broken. I thought you were smart enough to understand that, I guess I was wrong.
Some people call them musicians, you call them criminals.
Depends on your definition of “now.”
Like the drugs oba-mao has admitted to taking?
Of course you are still bittter I punked your dumb ass about hitting a superior officer. That’s why you are asking me about drugs and not the man you voted for president.
Why are you a hypocrite?
Speaking of you being a hypocrite, AND a liar…
You said you were going to ignore me, I guess that man crush you have on me prevents you from ignoring me.
Which is it mr. hit a superior officer, do you have a man crush on me or do you lack the self-control not to reply to me?
You didn’t have the self-control not to hit a superior officer, you didn’t have the self-control not to hit your wife, you didn’t have the self control not to act like an idiot and proclaim you’ve got the truth I’m Puddy.
You don’t even have the self-control to follow your own advice and ignore me.
Chris @ 47
Good question and excellent points.
I’ve had oxycontin. Gave me wicked headaches. Hated it. Can’t imagine popping those pills every single day. But drug effectiveness varies by person, so maybe it’s a good high for some.
I don’t know anything firsthand about meth (amphetamines), just what I’ve read. For instance, that military pilots use it. So it’s apparently not purely evil.
So you’re probably right.
The rate of addiction remains constant, regardless of availability. And data suggests casual (recreational) use goes down with decriminalization.
What do I care if someone on the bus is talking faster (meth) or smiling stupid (oxycontin)? As long as they’re not hurting others, it’s all good. And if they’re addicts, the only way to effectively treat them is to have every thing legit, legal, regulated, and accounted for.
I’m definitely for decriminalization, across the board.
I’m not against legalization. But don’t yet know enough to be for it.
My usual caveats remain: No drugs for minors, jail time for illegal activity, mandatory treatment for addicts, loss of custody for addicts who are parents (until the courts determine the parents have their act together).
Anecdotal followup…
My friends from India rarely take pills for anything, even headaches. We’ve talked about it. In India, most all drugs are available to anyone for the asking. But most people don’t seek it out. Their culture(s) has different strategies for dealing with life’s aches and disappointments.
What would happen if our illicit drugs were no longer forbidden fruit? Portugal shows that casual use goes down.
What would happen if drug companies, including cigarette and alcohol, weren’t allowed to market their products?
I think everyone would just act normal.
Some people would be addicts. Most people wouldn’t. And talking about drug related problems wouldn’t be taboo.
In other words, normal.
48:
No, it’s not ‘half-assed Democrat measures’, it’s the fact that there are still people who actually think that “Reefer Madness” was real. And then there Republicans like you who would then call them names and then make outlandish claims, say…. that “they’re forcing our children to do drugs and have gay sex!” in order to win elections against them.
To your credit, I’ll agree that it’s half-assed. But you could also call it incremental progress. Legalization will come sooner or later, but patience is required.