Search Results for: vote seattle weekly

A few more items in the new world order:

1. Jonathan Martin writes about how the world of drug-testing job applicants remains largely unchanged by I-502. Marijuana may become legal on December 6, but a number of employers (especially ones who have no choice due to federal policy) will still be having potential employees pee in a cup before they can start. Thankfully, most of this area’s top companies are generally smart enough not to waste their money on this.

When I was hired by Boeing during my senior year in Ann Arbor, having to take a drug test caught me off-guard. At the time, head shops sold both pre-mixed drinks and un-mixed powders that you’d consume the morning of the test in order to pee clean. I’ve heard that drug testing firms have gotten better about detecting those, but at the time, it was rather simple to beat those tests. As the internet has grown, pre-employment drug screenings have often been referred to as “intelligence tests” since it only tests to make sure you’re smart enough to get on Google and find out how to beat them.

Being in the software/internet/IT world, I don’t have to worry about this any more. In fact, if I come across a company that actually wants me to take a drug test (and isn’t being forced by federal policy to do so), I’d take it as a sign there’s something wrong with the company. It’s like saying “we’re so dysfunctional, a person with a drug problem can pass the interview and work here unnoticed”. Almost no companies do it.

The state of Florida recently implemented a program to drug screen welfare recipients. Despite a lot of rhetoric about how this was a fiscally responsible decision, the program actually cost taxpayers more money. There’s little reason to believe that the dynamic is any different when it comes to pre-employment screening and is costing companies money that they could be spending elsewhere.

2. Joe Fryer from KING5 looks at Colorado’s strict regulations for medical marijuana dispensaries. It’s an informative piece, although I take slight exception with this wording:

Washington has been hesitant to regulate businesses that grow and sell medical marijuana because the federal government still considers it a Schedule 1 drug with no medical benefits.

It wasn’t “Washington” that was hesitant to regulate them. The voters of this state have long supported it, and the legislature passed a bill to have it done very similarly to how Colorado does it. The only one who was hesitant was Governor Gregoire, who vetoed those regulations and left us miles behind Colorado. Because of that blunder, Colorado will have a much easier transition into regulated sales than we will, although I’m starting to become more confident that Governor-Elect Inslee will be a little smarter on this subject.

3. Why is so hard for the Tacoma News Tribune to find someone who isn’t a complete moron when talking about the drug war? I don’t have time to dissect the whole thing, so let me quickly summarize the things that Brian O’Neill gets wrong:

– The relationship between the Mexican government’s concern for drug trafficking and the level of the violence is the exact opposite of what O’Neill assumes. Over the years, as the Mexican government has intensified its fight against the traffickers, the amount of violence in the country has gone way up, not down. If the reverse happens, and Mexico stops worrying about them, the violence would start going back down again.
– Mexican drug trafficking organizations have shown that regardless of what the Mexican government does, they can still make billions of dollars from American drug consumption. The total amount of money spent by Americans isn’t the main variable here. In other words, if the Mexican government eased up on its enforcement, the main thing that would likely happen is that prices in the U.S. might go down a bit, not that drug trafficking organizations would make that much more in profits.
– Regardless of what happens with marijuana policy in Mexico City, neither the Mexican nor American government has ever been able to stop cocaine, meth, or other drugs from being smuggled into the United States. The idea that it will become harder if Mexico stops trying to interdict just marijuana is absurd. If anything, it would make it easier, since it can focus on a smaller percentage of the overall drug trade.
– There’s some disagreement about the extent that I-502 (and Colorado’s measure) will impact Mexico’s drug trafficking organizations, but believing that it will lead to a more porous border and higher profits for illegal gangs is pure lunacy. The amount of money they make is a function of how much Americans spend in the black market. If laws (like Washington’s and Colorado’s) re-direct that consumer spending away from the black market, the gangs make less. It’s not rocket science, and the News Tribune should really try harder to get someone on their staff who understands it.

The Seattle Times published a dreadful Op-Ed by Joe Delmore, a Seattle-based freelance writer. Delmore is mourning the defeat of Rob McKenna:

…it will continue what amounts to one-party rule of the governor’s office. Not since 1980, when an almost-forgotten John Spellman won the governorship, has a Republican gained the state’s highest office.

Because of this three-decade dry spell, Washington has gone longer than any other state in the union without having a Republican governor, according to The Weekly Standard.

Delmore does recognize part of the problem:

Like the national party, the state’s GOP has become more conservative, even reactionary, on cultural issues like abortion and gay marriage.

…but then he fails in trying to draw a parallel to the Democrats:

It’s also true that the Democratic Party has become rigidly partisan on these same cultural issues.

The Democrat’s position on abortion and gay marriage are pretty much mainstream positions, with a bit of forward-thinking social policy thrown in. In contrast, the position of many state Republicans amounts to going backward to the social policy of the 1950. Hardly equivalent.

Are there solutions? Delmore points out:

Secretary of State Sam Reed, one of the few Republicans to win statewide office, says the party must learn to appeal to more centrist voters. Former Republican state chairman Chris Vance said the party needs to know what it takes to win independents and win elections. “It is not enough to appeal to the base,” he asserted.

Both men are spot on. Moderate Republicans have become increasingly irrelevant in this state as the Clint Diddiers and John Kosters have become noisier and angrier.

But Delmore doesn’t buy it:

Those are views of a big-tent party, but won’t solve the problem for Republicans. Republicans must still remember their pragmatic conservative roots based on the fundamental values of hard work and enterprise, a belief in God and fiscal conservatism. Those quite valid ideas still attract people from all walks of life.

Ignoring that positions of the current crop of noisy Republicans bear no resemblance to true conservationism, Delmore’s prescription for Republicans seems to be, “more of the same, except for social issues.”

But isn’t this precisely what voters rejected in this past election? McKenna has always downplayed social issues. And before McKenna, Dino Rossi tried, albeit less successfully, to do the same thing. And Mike!™ McGavick, who the Seattle Times’ Joni Balter labled as taking a limited pro-choice stance, was all about hard work and enterprise. Washington voters weren’t buying what these Republicans were selling…even without the social issues.

Two closing comments. First, Delmore’s lamentations about “one party rule” ring hollow. We have these things called elections where (typically) a Republican and a Democratic candidate ends up facing off in a General election. Each candidate puts their ideas forward. The people vote for what they find compelling.

Republicans have a thirty year gubernatorial losing streak because their ideas and candidates have not resonated with the voters. The ideas and candidates from the Democratic side have.

Republicans aren’t going to start winning by embracing and shoring-up their conservative creds, while downplaying social issues. They’ve been there, done that. And failed.

Lastly, I found Mr. Delmore’s biosketch a bit odd (my emphasis):

Joe Delmore, a registered Independent, is writing a book on contemporary politics….

A “registered independent,” huh? I wonder what state he’s living in?

– The social engineering in recruiting and force structure, the endless, pointless missions,the impossible standard set by asking every soldier to be a “hero,” when soldiers know that most heroes are dead or disabled. Etcetera, etcetera, etcetera. Which is why it’s no wonder that we see stories like this…

– Another chance for Pierce Transit voters to vote for a sales tax increase to help their system.

– Paid signature gathering, what could go wrong?

– I haven’t had a chance to watch the Revitalizing State and Local Blogging panel at Netroots Nation, but the tweets were interesting.

– Olympia High School‘s response to Westboro Baptist Church. [h/t, and while you’re there, check out the Calvin Johnson walking tour of Olympia]

– I’m the guy in the video. LOL forever.

– You’ll all be shocked to learn that the Weekly Standard are a bunch of war mongers.

– I’m not thrilled with Obama’s decision to give his blessing to a super PAC to support his reelection. Of course I’m not a fan of campaigning with one hand tied behind his back. But I think given American’s dislike of them (and the fact that he will be well funded anyway), he could have spun his not having one for more value than I think it will add. But I don’t think it’s hypocrisy to oppose them in principal and have one when the other side already has several.

– Goldy has picked up on the idea of messing with the GOP Caucus. I’m leaning toward Fred Karger, even though I’d vote for Obama in a general election between the two of them.

– New Ventures Facility

– Planned Parenthood has a lot of allies.

– And it’ll need them, because there is a hell of a lot of anti-choice crap at the state level.

– I’ve been thinking for a couple days now about the athlete I’d have play for my soul and the best I can come up with is it would have to be in an individual sport. What I’m saying is I’m not very good at this game.

– Oh, look what they’re doing with spider webs these days.

The Republicans are still trying to find a credible opponent for Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-WA) in 2012. Former Bush Deputy White House spokesperson and Bush-Cheney ‘04 Press Secretary, Scott Stanzel is considering it.

But I said “credible.”

And now Seattle Weekly‘s Mike Seely writes:

…lately we’ve been hearing somewhat credible rumors that 8th District Congressman Dave Reichert might be up for abandoning his seat and challenging Cantwell. So is this chatter serious, or is there a stealthier factor at play here?

By “stealthier factor” he means that Reichert is using such rumors to leverage a more favorable redistricting outcome.

Seely ponders:

But what if Reichert’s motives are more pure? What would ensue would be a fascinating race between polar opposites: Cantwell, the wonkish brainiac who takes on issues of substance yet struggles with retail politics and staff retention, versus Reichert, the dull knife who gets by on Ken-doll looks, law-enforcement legend, and timely tacks to the center.

That would be fun! I like it. Reichert is, for sure, a stronger opponent for Cantwell than is Stanzel. But a Reichert challenge would accomplish two things. First, it opens up the Democratic-leaning 8th CD (which, of course, may be unrecognizable by 2012). Second, it means Republicans would dump lots of money into the race. Less so with Stanzel; Republicans would find more promising races upon which to spend their spoils.

This is Reichert’s big Window of Opportunity…but could he win?

In a statewide competition against an uberwonk, Reichert would not get away with his usual strategy of dodging all things substantive. He’ll have to speak in public and try to come off as intelligent and informed. No more “I’ve looked in a microscope and seen the heartbeat of a stem cell” moments; no more, “I don’t know enough about this issue, so I’ll pass on the question” answers like he gave in his 2006 debate against Darcy Burner. No more confessions of voting the way the leadership tells him to vote. The Cantwell campaign would eat him alive for such blunders.

So, no, he can’t. If Reichert sticks his head through that Window of Opportunity…he’ll get his freakin’ throat slit….

Just as it was before the events of the last legislative session, Tacoma is the flashpoint for the fight between those working to create access points for medical marijuana patients and the anti-drug establishment trying to turn back the clock. The News Tribune’s Jordan Schrader, who is – unlike his paper’s editorial board – both competent and sane, provides the latest news:

Tacoma’s push to shut down more than 30 medical-marijuana sellers inched forward Monday, even as outlets in unincorporated Pierce County received letters from the Sheriff’s Department putting them on notice.

Sheriff Paul Pastor said his office sent letters to about 15 dispensaries late last week to notify them about the county’s interpretation of a state law that took effect Friday.

Businesses say the law gives them a way to keep operating, but Pastor said it puts limits on any seller wanting an “atmosphere of lots of clients and easy access.”

“They’re allowed as long as they conform to the law,” Pastor said. “It’s my understanding that would strongly limit what they were able to do.”

I have a feeling that both Sheriff Pastor and the lunatics at the News Tribune editorial board are going to be somewhat disappointed. While the new law certainly disallows direct sales to any authorized patient who comes in off the street, individuals who want to set up a storefront and run a business will likely still be able to do so by organizing their customers into a series of different gardens and possibly even rotating them in and out of those gardens in order to conform with the law. Even without rotating them, a single person can belong to many different gardens and therefore maintain a fairly large network of patients from a single location and still stay within the letter of the law.

And in a post from Seattle Weekly today, Keegan Hamilton reports that Ed Troyer from the Pierce County Sheriff’s Office struck a far more reasonable tone when asked how aggressive they’d really be. It’s possible that over the course of the past few days, Pierce County officials are realizing that the mess created by the partial veto did little more than force dispensaries to reorganize their business models.

Of course, no one seems to have any idea what the law exactly allows. And even fewer people know what the hell the folks at the News Tribune editorial board are smoking. They see Seattle’s tolerance of these medical marijuana access points as a cover for drug trafficking, but that makes absolutely no sense. By having them operate above ground, it’s far easier to ensure that they’re not selling to unauthorized people. In Tacoma, on the other hand, if city and county officials are successful at putting those who want to play by the rules out of business, the drug traffickers win. It’s nothing short of amazing that the city’s main newspaper can’t figure that out.

The bigger potential problem here, however, is that with medical marijuana still illegal under federal law, there’s a genuine concern that overzealous local officials could invite in federal enforcement to take down even the providers who follow state law. And Tacoma voters will provide a good gauge of how popular such a move would be when they vote in November to make marijuana law enforcement the city’s lowest priority.

The Seattle Weekly gets UW political science Prof. Matt Barreto’s take on the 2012 election. (Prof. Barreto is frequently heard on KUOW discussing elections and election results, and he is the director of the Washington Poll.)

Here’s his take on what will happen in Washington state:

“I think in the presidential election Obama will win handily, Cantwell could end up winning by 15 points, and the governor’s race will come down to the wire.”

“In 2008 Gregoire had a pretty sizable win thanks to the huge pro-Obama vote. Obama is likely to be elected by a big margin, but he’s unlikely to have that kind of enthusiasm. And if there’s not a big enthusiasm vote for Obama, McKenna could eek out a win.”

The Inslee—McKenna race will be one of the hottest contests in the country, and the Obama campaign knows it. So don’t be surprised if Obama makes several high-profile visits to Washington state during election season.

Sure…we’re always something of an ATM machine for Democratic candidates. But most importantly, visits by Obama will help generate the enthusiasm needed to put Inslee in the Governor’s mansion.

As you’ve probably seen by now, it’s officially over:

A yearlong attempt to clarify Washington’s medical marijuana laws collapsed Tuesday, leaving state dispensaries without legal recognition and more vulnerable to prosecution.

Sen. Jeanne Kohl-Welles, D-Seattle, had pursued a series of proposals to regulate the dispensaries, managing to usher one plan all the way to the governor’s desk. But Gov. Chris Gregoire struck down key parts of it with a veto last month, and a scramble to pass two other plans before the end of the legislative session failed to get enough support in committee.

“By far, this represents the greatest disappointment of my legislative career,” Kohl-Welles said.

I certainly have sympathy for Kohl-Welles. She worked tirelessly for this bill, tried hard to ensure that all stakeholders were involved, and persevered when things got rough – only to see the governor wreck her efforts through what appears to be either dishonesty, incompetence, or both. To underscore exactly how bad the governor’s actions were, both Delaware and Vermont are in the process of passing bills into law that have the kinds of provisions that the governor falsely claimed would put state workers at risk of arrest. And even worse, America’s Craziest Governor, Jan Brewer of Arizona, is now using Gregoire’s bogus talking points in her attempt to overturn Arizona’s voter-approved medical marijuana law.

In other news, State Rep. Roger Goodman is continuing to put pressure on Attorney General Rob McKenna to weigh in on this issue. As I’ve written before, McKenna’s animosity towards our state’s voter-approved medical marijuana law stands in stark contrast to his belief that the state needs to stand up to the federal government’s tyranny via the Affordable Care Act. Goodman’s latest letter to McKenna specifically references this bit of legendary hypocrisy, by pointing out that McKenna has expressed his opinion on health care reform, but remains awfully quiet about whether or not the state of Washington should be standing up for its citizens over medical marijuana.

Also staying silent on this issue is the DEA, which has been stalling for nearly ten years regarding a petition to reschedule marijuana out of its Schedule I classification (reserved for highly addictive drugs with no medical use). A coalition of advocacy groups filed another suit yesterday to get them to respond. The cause for the DEA’s silence is that if they come back and say that marijuana has no medical value (which I’m sure they’d love to say), then there’d be a follow-up lawsuit that allows a judge to review the evidence and provide a ruling. For reasons that should be obvious, the DEA would prefer not to go down that route. So instead, they’ve locked themselves in the closet with Rob McKenna, hoping that everyone will stop asking them why they continue to support one of the most inexcusable policy disasters of the past half-century.

The Republicans are sure waging a shit-load of wars against Americans.

Consider just last week. First the House Republicans:

…approved two resolutions that would amend the FY 2011 spending bill to block funding designated for Planned Parenthood and last year’s healthcare law. But House passage is largely symbolic, as the Senate did not pass either of the bills.

After that, House Republicans passed Rep. Ryan’s budget bill that privatizes Medicare, radically cuts the federal contribution to Medicaid, creates even more tax cuts for the rich and some corporations, and repeals health care reforms. The bill is DOA in the Senate, not to mention the Oval Office. And it should be DOA to most Americans.

One half the population ought to be outraged at the Republican’s War on Women. And add to that a lot non-women folk who like to fuck without making babies. Many of these non-women appreciate that Planned Parenthood provides help with that. In other words, a big chunk of young voting-age (or almost voting-age) Americans should be repulsed by these senseless political attacks on Planned Parenthood.

It is hard to imagine that senior citizens can be big fans of higher out-of-pocket insurance costs proposed in Ryan’s Medicare privatization bill to fund tax cuts for the rich. Some Seniors must find Rep. Dave Reichert’s War on AARP a little unsettling.

The poor, the disabled? I cannot believe they enjoyed being screwed by the Republicans.

All this comes on top of prior alienation. African Americans? Pretty much lost to the G.O.P. already. Hispanics? There was a small blip in increased support in 2010, but still down about 22% on average. And union members? Yeah…like they’re going to forgive and forget the War on Workers playing out in Wisconsin, Ohio, Indiana, Florida, Maine, Michigan, etc. The LGBT communities? Not really big supporters.

Republicans have lost the old, the young, the poor and disadvantaged, women, workers, and the nation’s largest minority groups. So who’s left?

Rich White Guys. That’s who.

Oh…yeah. Corporations, too.

But Republicans are not going to be voted out of office en masse. Even if a huge majority of Americans would be financially hurt by G.O.P. legislation, and even if they are morally opposed to the extremist agenda of the current crop of batshit crazy Republicans, Americans will still vote against their economic self-interest and moral principles. The Republicans will offer to rape them; they will assent.

Why? Some people are not paying attention. And other people are easily swayed. There is almost no harm that can be proposed or undertaken by Republicans that cannot be undone with enough money in the weeks leading up to an election.

Apparently Republicans have done this calculation, and they have concluded that the money infused by Rich White Guys and Wealthy Corporations over the next few elections will overcome the losses incurred by their all-out assault on most Americans.

Have they erred in their calculations?

Last night’s Cannabis Defense Coalition public meeting saw another large crowd. For the second month in a row, I moderated the meeting. The discussion was recorded and the audio should be posted up at the CDC webpage soon (UPDATE: It’s posted).

As expected, the main focus of the discussion was about the medical marijuana bill, SB 5073, which has been amended and re-amended a number of times so far. In its most recent incarnation, it provides for arrest protection for non-registered patients in only the most superficial sense. It prevents law enforcement from taking you to jail, but it doesn’t stop them from searching your house or charging you – and forcing you to use your affirmative defense in court. Of course, signing up for the registry gives you complete arrest protection, but the general sense from most patients is that signing up for the registry is a absolute non-starter, as these lists often end up in the wrong hands.

This dilemma of trust is really the heart of the remaining disagreements with the bill in its current form. The bill represents an attempt to craft a system that protects patients, but many of them are still convinced that they won’t be protected from overzealous law enforcement. For instance, the medical language in sections 301.2a and 2b were written with the help of a physician who had worked on the initial voter initiative in 1998. From a purely technical standpoint, the language of the bill should protect doctors who recommend and authorize medical marijuana use. But from an historical standpoint, there remains a lot of concern that doctors who do so will still be targeted, and that even well-written regulations will be enough to make doctors wary of inviting suspicion. As an example, Douglas Hiatt brought up Grant County, where law enforcement has repeatedly reported legitimate doctors to MQAC because they still believe that any authorization of medical marijuana is improper.

At the meeting, Alison Holcomb of the ACLU of Washington defended the language concerning doctors in Section 301, and assured everyone that doctors wouldn’t be targeted. It’s very possible she’s right and that the concerns expressed by the doctors who’ve been at the last two meetings won’t materialize. The ACLU has been a main driving force for this bill, and yesterday distributed this flyer in support. As has always been the case within drug law reform in Washington state, the ACLU has been more willing to work directly with institutional actors and to believe that they’ll act in good faith, while many in the patient community are more wary. The truth ends up being somewhere in the middle, with cases of law enforcement overreach and administrative cruelty that shock us, but with conditions slowly getting better for patients as we move forward. Much of the problem is one of culture and perception, something that the law can’t address.

One good illustration of this came at the end of the meeting, when defense attorney Kurt Boehl discussed a case he’s currently working on in Bellevue, where a medical marijuana patient used his marijuana while parked in the Bellevue Square parking lot. Very wisely, instead of using his marijuana before he drove, he waited until he got to his destination. The man had tinted windows, but opened his sunroof to allow for ventilation. Unfortunately, some Bellevue Police officers climbed to a high vantage point to see through his sunroof and claimed that he was using his medical marijuana in public view. In this environment, where many police officers are so eager to play gotcha with the law, it’s not hard to understand why many are wary of protections that are anything less than absolute.

Those debates aside, however, there remains one aspect of the bill that is truly bad and needs to be fixed. It’s the “lottery” provision that puts an artificially low cap on the number of dispensaries and could allow for a system where licenses are either given out randomly or to well-connected folks looking for easy profits, as has just happened in New Jersey. We need to push for a system that allows medical marijuana dispensaries to compete and fail based upon how well they serve customers, not based upon whether they possess the only license in town. Establishing a system where dispensaries are protected from competition is the best way to see them artificially inflate their prices and not give a crap about the people who rely on them.

This Thursday, the Senate Health and Long-Term Care Committee will be having a hearing for the medical marijuana bill introduced by Senator Jeanne Kohl-Welles (D-36). State Rep. Jim Moeller (D-49) has introduced an identical bill in the House.

These bills have been introduced because of the numerous shortcomings in the original medical marijuana law passed by voters in 1998 and updated in 2007. These shortcomings have been frustrating for patients and law enforcement as it’s given rise to a quasi-legal system of underground dispensaries. Here are the main items that this legislation aims to address:

– Arrest Protection – Under the current law, patients don’t have any formal protection from arrest. Under the February 2010 State Supreme Court decision in State v Fry, courts affirmed that police can conduct searches and arrest even the patients who are following the letter of the law and force them to prove in court that they’re in compliance. In most of the state, this hasn’t mattered as few county prosecutors are willing to drag medical marijuana patients through the court system when they’re clearly in compliance, but there have been exceptions (particularly in rural counties like Kitsap).

– Cooperative Grows – Under the current law, there’s no provision for cooperative grows, which for many is a convenient way to ensure a constant supply of medicine. Under the language of the bill, coops will be limited to 25 people and 99 plants.

– Licensed Producers and Licensed Dispensaries – The most significant part of this bill is the creation of a regulated system of marijuana producers and dispensers. Producers will be licensed and regulated by the Department of Agriculture and dispensaries will be licensed and regulated by the Department of Health. Under the current language of the bill, the licensing would begin on July 1, 2012. In the interim, the bill claims that dispensaries operating under the terms of this law will be able to present an affirmative defense in court. One issue that’s been raised is whether adding these responsibilities to these state agencies can be done in the current all-cuts environment – even with the knowledge that the taxes collected from this bill would be a minor windfall for the state budget.

– Designated Providers – While this bill authorizes dispensaries and coops, it does not dismantle the existing rules regarding designated providers. However, dispensaries have used some creative legal reasoning to maintain that they’re complying with the restrictions on designated providers that they can only provide for one patient at one time (in some cases by having each customer sign a paper denoting that the dispensary is their provider for the duration of the transaction). Under this bill, a designated provider must wait for 15 days to switch the patient they’re providing for. It’s not entirely clear whether the provider will be in violation of the law if he continues to grow plants in that fifteen day period.

– Employment Protection – Earlier today, the State Supreme Court heard arguments in the case of Jane Roe v. Teletech. This case involves a woman who was fired from a customer service phone job that she’d just started after she tested positive for marijuana on a drug screening. She’d previously informed them at the time she was hired that she was a medical marijuana patient. The bill includes language that provides employment discrimination protection against cases like this unless the job involves public safety, operating heavy machinery, or handling dangerous substances. It doesn’t provide any protection for those who want to use medical marijuana while at work.

– Probation – There’s language in the bill that allows for individuals (if allowed by a judge) to use medical marijuana while on probation. This is a response to the aggressive attempts (at the behest of Rob McKenna’s office) to prevent anyone on probation from being able to use medical marijuana – even if they’d been an authorized patient for years.

– Patient Registries – What’s arguably the most controversial part of the bill among patients is the patient registry. In order to provide an easy way for law enforcement officials to determine whether individuals are authorized patients, the bill establishes a patient registry. The language of the bill is fairly strong about providing the proper kinds of mechanisms to keep this information secret, but recent news events from other states have shown that promises of confidentiality don’t always work out as expected.

I’ve been typing up this list while at the Cannabis Defense Coalition’s meeting to discuss the pro’s and con’s of the bill. There’s a lot of nervousness among patients that this bill could end up like the bill in 2007, where the strongest aspects of the bill are stripped away, leaving patients in continued limbo. My hope is that the experience of the last few years gives the legislature a greater impetus to provide real fixes for a broken system. On Thursday, we’ll begin to find out where this is headed.

UPDATE: The city of Edmonds is trying to ban dispensaries. They apparently already have one that operates openly there. If Kohl-Welles’ bill passes, however, cities like Edmonds would not be able to override the state law and ban dispensaries outright. They could only use “reasonable” zoning restrictions to keep them from being located in certain areas.

UPDATE 2: Nina Shapiro has more here in the Seattle Weekly.

One of the best feelings in politics comes after a close win where you put in a lot of effort. So when I look at the results in the Senate race, I’m proud to have made a difference. Those phone calls, that getting people to commit to vote, that push for more volunteers. It made people fill out their ballots. We rocked turnout in King County.

You could see the effort put into the ground for Senator Murray at the coordinated campaign. Many times, I was put in a corner on a cell phone to make calls because there were so many people they’d exhausted all the lines and all the good seats. And despite overwork and a lack of sleep, an upbeat staff always had work for me. I’ve volunteered for a lot of campaigns since before I could vote, and this was one of the ones I most looked forward to going to every time.

In a close election everything was important, and Patty’s commitment to her volunteers certainly helped. It’s also nice to have a candidate you support, rather than just a candidate who is better than that other one. One of my favorite calls was from someone who said he was, “so glad you aren’t another Karl Rove robocall” who on top of convincing to turn in his ballot, I convinced to come volunteer.

I’m so proud to have been a small part of that effort that helped push Patty over the top. I know a few other people who I saw there are readers of this blog, so thanks Stephen and thanks Ivan for showing up and thanks to all the other volunteers I had conversations with between calls. Thanks Carly, the volunteer coordinator for my district who was always a pleasure to talk to, and all the other staff. Thanks most especially to Patty Murray for being a candidate worth my time, and for making my effort worthwhile with a well run campaign.

With the election results last night showing Republican voters in the northeast rallying behind their more extreme candidates, I’m left wondering what was so different about our own primary. On the surface, it seems like all of the same parts of the equation were at play. Clint Didier was endorsed by Sarah Palin, had enthusiastic support from the most motivated Republicans, and was certifiably nuts. In Delaware and New York yesterday, that trifecta was a recipe for success. But here, it only translated into 12% of the vote in the primary. What was different about Washington? Was Didier not as sophisticated a campaigner? Was the Washington GOP more effective in making electability the focus? I’m not really sure what the answers are, so I’m posting this as an open-ended question. I’m very curious why Didier couldn’t catch the same wave that Paladino and O’Donnell did.

This week, both of the progressive marijuana bills introduced in the State House this session were voted down by the Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Committee. This wasn’t a terribly surprising outcome, as the Committee continues to be led by former police officer Chris Hurst (D-Enumclaw), who killed the decriminalization bill last year as well. Despite the outcome, having an actual legalization bill introduced was another big step forward towards ending the disastrous prohibition of marijuana.

Making that even more clear are the results of a SurveyUSA poll, which finds that 56% of Washington adults think that legalizing marijuana is a good idea (vs. only 36% who think it’s a bad idea). On top of that, the only demographic that remains strongly opposed is the 65 and over crowd. Even among those aged 50-64, SurveyUSA found that 63% think legalizing marijuana is a good idea. And even in Eastern Washington, they found that 52% think it’s a good idea.

Those numbers alone won’t make the laws change though. It still requires either the legislature and the Governor to care about overwhelming public support for reforming the laws (not going to happen any time soon), or it will take a voter initiative. On the latter front, Sensible Washington is gearing up for the 2010 ballot with an initiative to remove the criminal penalties for marijuana. According to Sensible Washington, they aim to have the initiative language hammered out by March 1, and will be collecting signatures through July. They need over 240,000 to qualify for the November ballot.

What ends up being the most frustrating aspect of this effort, though, is that there simply isn’t a sensible reason for Democrats in this state (or in other more progressive states) to get on board. In fact, Ben Morris makes this connection with respect to the defeat of Martha Coakley in Massachusetts. Coakley was a vocal opponent of the decriminalization initiative that Massachusetts voters approved by almost a 2 to 1 margin. Yet everyone was scratching their head as to why progressives and young voters didn’t show up to vote for her.

Whether Democrats like it or not, drug law reform is part of the “change” that people want right now. And while drug policy isn’t as high profile an issue as health care or job creation, the frames that exist to drive voters perceptions of candidates are often greatly influenced by things like a vocal opposition to a commonsense drug policy measure – especially for young people, for whom the issue is often far simpler to grasp. It’s really hard to convince young people that Martha Coakley is the person you need to vote for to bring about “change” after she spent 2008 supporting absurd reefer madness crusades in an attempt to defeat the ballot measure. The fact that Democrats even here in Washington can’t look at these polls and put 2 and 2 together doesn’t make me very optimistic about their chances this November.

UPDATE: Seattle Weekly has a Q&A with Douglas Hiatt of Sensible Washington.