I’ve been pretty critical of I-502, the initiative that legalizes possession of up to an ounce of marijuana for those 21 and over and regulates its production and sale. I’m not happy about the unscientific DUI provisions (which I think will be abused in order to continue the typical drug war harassment of minority youths and others), and I worry that the high taxes imposed within the supply chain – along with the continued ban on non-medical private growing – will continue to encourage a rogue “medical” marijuana industry, where sketchy doctors get paid to put recreational smokers on the path towards cheaper tax-free homegrown marijuana. If we’re going to be pioneers and establish a regulatory model that can serve as an example for other states, that makes me nervous.
Those problems aside, passing I-502 this November has the potential to be a massive game-changer in the history of drug prohibition in this country. The conventional wisdom is that any statewide vote to legalize marijuana will go as far as statewide efforts to legalize hemp farming (which is legal in several U.S. states, but still successfully pre-empted by federal law). On the other hand, we’ve seen statewide efforts to legalize medical marijuana successfully push back against the federal ban to the point where dispensaries have become public and even prominent.
Passing I-502 brings that conflict out in the open, and there’s good reason to believe that the dynamics would be similar to what’s happened with medical marijuana. As legalized medical marijuana became a reality in a number of states, it became clear to public officials that this legal market should be regulated, rather than continually driven underground. This led to greater and greater pushback from state and local governments. And even though both idiots running for governor this year oppose I-502, this reality will be clear to them if it passes and there are hundreds of thousands of law-abiding recreational marijuana users who constitute a very above-ground marketplace.
I’ve been disgusted at times by both sides in the I-502 debate. Pro I-502 voices have often been far too dismissive of the potential problems with the DUI provisions and have been far too prone to make things up about the folks in the medical marijuana community who oppose it. Opposition to I-502 in the medical marijuana community has very little to do with greed. It has far more to do with paranoia.
Folks who’ve been staring into the gun barrel of the drug war apparatus for years see the numerous aspects of I-502 that are meant to appeal to moderate voters and instead see loopholes that will allow the persecution of marijuana users to continue. As a result, the anti I-502 crowd has devolved into some grand delusions and have completely lost touch with the more nuanced reality of this initiative.
This initiative arguably isn’t crafted as well as it should have been, but it still has the potential to make important history this fall. In some ways it already has, by picking up the kinds of endorsements that these types of initiatives normally don’t receive. But a big win in November is the kind of endorsement that elected officials here and in D.C. won’t be able to ignore.
The best pro 502 argument I have seen yet. You really get down to the meat of the conflict. I am still undecided leaning towards no because I don’t want to approve of unjust laws just to move the conversation to the next level. Colorado and Oregon will also approve their initiatives by the polls and they don’t have as many people crying out saying how unjust the provisions are. Oregonians are willing to compromise to pass their initiative and they will do the same in Colorado yet they dont have unjust provisions to the extent that 502 has. I know 502 will pass, I am just not sure if it will get my vote. Legalize don’t peanilize!!!
I understand that you’re impressed by the endorsements and the money.
Please just explain why it’s OK for medical cannabis patients to “take one for the team” by subjecting themselves to a DUID every time they drive? Is that just paranoia? Really? Would you like to debate this with me publicly? How about at one of your own events?
Your website is well-named. You know me Lee. Let’s do this debate and see who’s really the Horses Ass.
I’m calling you out, Lee. Are you up for the challenge or are you just another spewing blogger? It’s one thing to be an anonymous face behind a blog, but it’s time to take it to the next level and step out and defend yourself in public.
Put up or just shut the fuck up before you criminalize medical cannabis patients here in Washington. How ’bout it, Lee? You ready? Show us you have some stones.
Accept all the “warts” you want….just don’t force them on others.
Steve Sarich
Spokesman
NO ON I-502 Committee
Even if 502 passes, wouldn’t pot still be illegal under federal law?
Thank you for this assessment, Lee. I have a lot of respect for you. I know, that you know, what is at stake.
I still plan to vote “no” on I-502, but you present one of the most valid cases for approval — the national perception of a “win”. This is a sentiment shared by NORML, MPP, DPA, and other groups seeking a symbolic victory.
The general public simply does not understand the nuances of the for/against arguments coming from the pro-cannabis community. It is the realm of cannabis politicos to demystify the impact of I-502. Some in the opposition camp do not have their arguments polished enough to accurately state the cons of 502, while the same is true for many in the yes-camp. These are the examples we see in comment threads, and it is this tension that spills over into the public sphere.
It doesn’t help when the Yes on 502 crowd fuel the flames with conjecture, asserting that profit is the primary motive for opposing the initiative. For anti-prohibition purists, the reason to oppose is because the language is so poorly written.
I call I-502 a shell-game of “hide the prohibition”. It isn’t legalization, it is decriminalization with an unnecessary DUI on Cannabis (DUIC). It is ironic that 502 supporters point to our current DUI laws, then say “See, you can get a marijuana DUI now!” — this is true — and also illustrates our point, that the current law works just fine, so why change it?
What is a lie, is when they say that our current law is zero tolerance, its not. I-502 creates a (false) definition for impairment, 5ng active THC per mL of whole blood, or 0.00 for anyone under 21 years of age. Our current law has no definition, as such, any amount can be contested in court, and the prosecution must prove impairment. Lack of a definition is not equal to zero.
The best way to decide if you will vote yes or no, is to actually read the initiative to see if it fits with your individual line of thinking, understand the implications. Ignore the propaganda of New Approach Washington’s “fact sheets”, these are designed to support their efforts — understand they have a personal bias (Marketing 101).
The political divide caused by I-502 is reprehensible. In the end, we all need the humility to realize that we aren’t enemies, we are friends on opposite sides of an argument. The conversation in Washington State is no longer about if we legalize, but how. This is very different from the failure of California’s Prop 19.
Regardless if 502 passes or fails, there will still be more work to do in the name of reform, and ending prohibition on cannabis. We need to be prepared to become friends again, once we’ve reached the other side of this argument.
Sincerely,
Troy Barber
Sensible Washington: Graphics, Media Relations & Outreach
Former Spokesman for No On I-502
I’m voting for it, my niece from S. WA will be voting for it (she needs a couple of tokes to be able to sleep, not driving) and my Sis will be voting for it.
Time to stop slicing & dicing and get this Prohibition crap out of the kegs!
@2
I’d be happy to do something at the CDC if you’d like. My schedule is pretty busy these days, but I’m sure we could find a day to do it.
And by the way, anonymous does not mean “not famous”. I haven’t been anonymous since 2004.
@3
Yes, so is medical marijuana. How has that conflict turned out? My point is that the federal law will be seen as an unnecessary hindrance to necessary regulations and the state will push back (successfully, in my opinion).
@2
I suspect that you would make a crappy debater.
“I understand that you’re impressed by the endorsements and the money.”
Ad homonym attack. Show me textual evidence that this statement is true or have you magically gone inside the head to ascertain how one arrived at an opinion. And that’s your opener?
“Please just explain why it’s OK for medical cannabis patients to “take one for the team” by subjecting themselves to a DUID every time they drive? ”
So current prohibitions against driving under the influence of drugs don’t exist? And the thrust of your argument is that you have the right to drive immediately after smoking an intoxicating substance. Yeah, that’s responsible medicating. You could actually look at NORML’s research that pretty substantially proves that within an hour of smoking you will be well under the 5ng limit. Your big issue is that users need to contemplate their actions responsibly and not be behind the wheel for 45-60 minutes immediately after smoking? Kind of like the warnings on most prescription drugs?
Nice, I was on the fence. Now I’m off.
@2
Please just explain why it’s OK for medical cannabis patients to “take one for the team” by subjecting themselves to a DUID every time they drive?
If you are operating a vehicle erratically you should be pulled over regardless of what is in your system. Last I checked the only way to get accurate reading of THC levels that are admissible in court is with a blood draw which isn’t something that is done on the side of the road. Impaired is impaired regardless of what chemical caused it.
How are patients with intoxicating levels of THC any different than a chronic pain patient having intoxicating levels of Oxy/opiates?
Well Lee, I saw 26 letters go out a couple of weeks ago closing down access points and I haven’t seen any state “push back” yet….or EVER for that matter. They closed down 57 in Colorado….same story.
So you don’t mind throwing patients under the bus, or young people, to see if you can get the attention of the feds? I think we already have their attention…and more of it than we ever wanted. Sorry….we refuse to go to jail so you can test out your theory.
If you really want to test the idea of state push back, you’ll actually have to legalize marijuana in Washington before the state will have a fighting chance in a Federal court. I-502 does not legalize marijuana….I think everyone is finally getting that message.
You don’t move forward by adding new prohibitions to the current ones. We already have laws on impaired driving. The difference is that they actually have to prove impairment as the law is currently written. They won’t have to do that under I-502. And if you’re a patient under 21 you’re totally screwed. You have a choice….never medicate or never drive. You think that’s an idea worth voting for? If so, I’ve got a seventeen year old girl with MS that you should meet. I’ve got an eighteen year old with bone cancer who’s on round three of chemo that might also like to have a couple of words with you on the subject.
If you want to put yourself in harms way, feel free…just don’t volunteer us.
@9
So, now you’re on to, “because the Feds are already enfoecing proximity to schools statutes on current clinics, passing a new legalization initiative will make it worse?”
I’ll say it again. If you drive while impaired you deserve to go to jail. This isn’t some test of what may happen, it’s in the public interest and is already supported by current law.
Sorry you may be ill, but a guy with broken legs can’t drive. A guy with a pacemaker can’t use a microwave. If you are illl, you make lifestyle changes. Or you can be an utterly selfish prick who thinks their right to smoke is paramount to the right of the general public to be safe on the roads. If you smoke and drive, you’re already in harms way by choice. This legislation doesn’t alter that fact.
No one should drive once he or she has had a few drinks or used cannabis. That doesn’t necessarily mean that alcohol or cannabis should be illegal, however. I fully support one’s private right to use whatever substance he or she chooses. The emphasis is on “private.” That means not driving around using one’s substance of choice.
@9
I helped my sister through two rounds of chemo for ovarian cancer, at no point during her treatments would it have been safe for her to be behind the wheel of a car. Chemo produces a thing called Chemo Brain, my sister’s Chemo Brain was enough to take her off the road, regardless of the effects of the other meds she was taking.
Honestly, it sounds to me like you’re trying to justify having people who are unsafe to be driving, driving.
STATES CAN’T OVERRULE FEDS! SUPREMACY CLAUSE!
\
Democrats
Oh wait, this isnt immigration and AZ, this is an issue libs support…
STATES RIGHTS!
\
Democrats
@13,
One of the things that helped end America’s “noble” experiment with alcohol prohibition was many of the state repealing their laws prohibiting alcohol. At the state level, many people realized that Prohibition, though well intended, was an unworkable law, creating more lawlessness and problems than it was hoped Prohibition would solve. I believe these repeals at the state level helped end the terrible idea of Prohibition at the national level.
“STATES CAN’T OVERRULE FEDS! SUPREMACY CLAUSE!”
That’s why we need a constitutional amendment whereby a 2/3 majority of the state legislatures can vote to repeal or make null and void any action by the president, any law or action taken by the House and/or Senate or any Supreme Court decision. That’s what states’ rights is all about, and I definitely like the idea of weakening the federal government.
Oh yeah, I’ll be supporting I-502 in November.
“…will continue to encourage a rogue “medical” marijuana industry, where sketchy doctors get paid to put recreational smokers on the path towards cheaper tax-free homegrown marijuana.”
Why are you putting all people who obey the medical laws that have been well established in this state “rogue”?
Stop trying to marginalize people in order to defend your opinion, especially when you agree with what they are saying. BAD SCIENCE MEANS BAD LAW. This is 2012, not 1937. Harry Anslinger is gone.
The science is in. Cannabis has medical uses. Get over it already. 5000+ years of science backs it up.
Go read RCW 69.51a to start with…
(b) Humanitarian compassion necessitates that the decision to use cannabis by patients with terminal or debilitating medical conditions is a personal, individual decision, based upon their health care professional’s professional medical judgment and discretion.
(2) Therefore, the legislature intends that:
(a) Qualifying patients with terminal or debilitating medical conditions who, in the judgment of their health care professionals, may benefit from the medical use of cannabis, shall not be arrested, prosecuted, or subject to other criminal sanctions or civil consequences under state law based solely on their medical use of cannabis, notwithstanding any other provision of law;
(b) Persons who act as designated providers to such patients shall also not be arrested, prosecuted, or subject to other criminal sanctions or civil consequences under state law, notwithstanding any other provision of law, based solely on their assisting with the medical use of cannabis; and
(c) Health care professionals shall also not be arrested, prosecuted, or subject to other criminal sanctions or civil consequences under state law for the proper authorization of medical use of cannabis by qualifying patients for whom, in the health care professional’s professional judgment, the medical use of cannabis may prove beneficial.
@16
When clinics stop getting raided by the feds for selling pounds in a single transaction or selling to UC Feds who tell them flat out they’re transporting it out of state/country then maybe you’ll get my sympathy. Note that there are clinics that have had no issues with L.E. But you can’t possibly be blind to the existence of Prescription Mills and sketchy distribution centers. Not all, but certainly more than a handful.
And before this dies, let’s look at the evolution of a debate:
“Uhhhh…you’ve bought into advertising. But, but, but the Feds are already closing down clinics that are in open violation of federal law so I beleive the clinics the feds are ignoring will be raided if we make it fully legal cause, well, I just know it. If we pass this, those of us who illegally smoke and drive might continue to be arrested for driving under the influence! And furthermore, Pot has medicinal uses so damnit we should be allowed to drive right after smoking. It’s legal for medicine so making it legal for all would put us in jeopardy, exactly the kind of jeopardy we’re already in.”
Really, you’re the spokesman for No on I-502? There wasn’t a competent person with a coherent message? If this is how you debate in a written forum with plenty of time to measure and analyze your thoughts, a live debate would certainly be entertaining.
@9
Well Lee, I saw 26 letters go out a couple of weeks ago closing down access points and I haven’t seen any state “push back” yet….or EVER for that matter.
Steve, that’s ridiculous. For starters, the “access points” are technically dispensaries, which are still illegal in this state, yet our U.S. Attorney still allows them to operate. The Feds could do so much more to shut down the medical marijuana industry in this state, but they don’t because a number of local politicians (especially Satterberg and Holmes) understand exactly the dynamic I talked about above.
So you don’t mind throwing patients under the bus, or young people, to see if you can get the attention of the feds?
It bothers me that I have to make that choice, but yes, I think the benefits of I-502 passing outweigh the drawbacks.
Sorry….we refuse to go to jail so you can test out your theory.
The fact that you’re not in jail right now is probably the greatest testament to what I’m saying here, that the feds are more powerless to stop this industry than is often imagined.
If you really want to test the idea of state push back, you’ll actually have to legalize marijuana in Washington before the state will have a fighting chance in a Federal court. I-502 does not legalize marijuana….I think everyone is finally getting that message.
I-502 establishes regulations for production, distribution, and sale. That’s legalization. Call it limited legalization if you want, it’s still legalization, and the feds will take the position that it’s not allowed. I tend to think the feds will lose that battle. We’ll see.
You think that’s an idea worth voting for? If so, I’ve got a seventeen year old girl with MS that you should meet. I’ve got an eighteen year old with bone cancer who’s on round three of chemo that might also like to have a couple of words with you on the subject.
I’ve written about the problems with the DUI provisions before, and I’ve given them a lot of attention. They ARE serious problems, and I DO get frustrated with those who just say “well don’t smoke and drive”, because those people clearly don’t understand the complexity of the issue.
Sadly, NAW added these provisions (I certainly wouldn’t have). And you’re right, if I-502 passes, there’s going to be tragic fallout. I don’t think it will affect many people, but it will affect enough to be a problem.
But as I said, I think this is outweighed by the benefits, one of which is that the thousands of people who normally get arrested for possession will no longer be getting arrested, and that we’ll no longer have a marijuana industry controlled by criminal elements. And most importantly, we trigger the conflict between a state’s desire to regulate its marijuana markets and the federal government’s indefensible ban on such plans.
The stoners have, and will, ride on the back of the medical patients….until such time to kick them to the curb.