– The survivor of the South Park rapes and murder speaks up in her own name for the first time.
– I don’t know what to say about the UK riots.
– US Bonds have been downgraded. We need to find something safe. Like US Bonds!
– GOP celebrates it’s ability to lose seats in Wisconsin.
– Middle Man.
– Eyman’s latest dumbass initiative may cost us federal money.
Seattle Weekly’s medical marijuana columnist Steve “banned in China” Elliott has put up two posts about the internal conflict in the marijuana legalization movement in Washington state. This conflict has been my #1 source of headaches for the past year or so, and it’s starting to look like I need to invest in a lot more Excedrin.
With the failure of Sensible Washington to make the ballot for the second year running (disclosure: during the most recent signature gathering effort, I volunteered to help with their media relations and some IT projects, but have stepped back significantly since starting a new job in June), a new group called New Approach Washington (NAW) emerged with an impressive roster of supporters. NAW is headed up by Alison Holcomb and the ACLU of Washington and has some big names on its side, including Seattle City Attorney Pete Holmes, former U.S. Attorney John McKay and TV personality Rick Steves. This should be good news for everyone who wants to see the end of marijuana prohibition, but as Elliott points out, there’s a bit of a problem.
The initiative that NAW put together includes some provisions that aren’t perfect, but still a step forward – like the fact that individuals still won’t be able to grow their own plants unless they’re a medical patient – but it has one big provision that is absolutely toxic. The NAW initiative introduces a Delta-9 THC limit (5 ng/ml) that would become the equivalent to the .08 BAC limit for alcohol. The problem is that Delta-9 THC isn’t an accurate measure of impairment the way that a BAC reading is. As Elliott explains:
According to Alison Holcomb of New Approach Washington, fact sheets found on the FAQ portion of New Approach’s website [PDF] address [Sensible Washington’s Douglas] Hiatt’s objections.
The fact sheets assert that a 5 ng/ml THC level “is analogous” to a .08 blood alcohol content, but that assertion is unproven and quite debatable — with possibly hundreds of patient DUI arrests hanging in the balance.
Cited as evidence on the NAW site [PDF] is a scientific study which, crucially, measured THC levels of recreational — as opposed to medicinal — marijuana users. Typically, medical marijuana users, especially those dealing with heavy nausea and pain, smoke much, much more than recreational users, resulting of course in higher acute and residual THC blood levels.
For example, Denver Westword medical marijuana dispensary critic William Breathes tested three times over the proposed legal limit of 5 ng/ml while completely sober and unimpaired.
Breathes took the test when an identical limit of 5 ng/ml was proposed for Colorado. The Colorado Legislature backed away from the DUI limit when presented with the scientific evidence.
As a result, the reaction from some corners has been downright visceral. Some members of Sensible Washington disrupted a volunteer meeting for NAW last month, and the more moderate factions of the group have been trying to dial back the group’s rhetoric.
At the last monthly public meeting of the Cannabis Defense Coalition, an NAW representative heard an earful from a few folks, but it wasn’t quite as bad as I expected it to be. And CDC founding member Ben Livingston defended the NAW’s approach by pointing out how the issue of driving while stoned can be a difficult one politically. Although he also pointed out how someone he knew – a medical marijuana patient – had been written up for a cannabis-related DUI that morning merely by having a tail light out. Under the law now, any competent attorney can beat that charge. If NAW’s initiative passes, that likely won’t be possible any more.
And now an offshoot of former Sensible Washington members calling themselves Yes End Penalties (YEP) has filed their own initiative to the legislature. YEP’s initiative uses the language from last year’s Sensible Washington initiative (which lacks the part that directs the legislature to regulate it), and they’ll be collecting signatures soon. NAW’s initiative is I-502. YEP’s is I-505.
The conflict will continue to play out at next weekend’s Hempfest. NAW will insist that YEP’s approach is too radical while YEP will insist that NAW’s attempts to appease fence-sitters will alienate the motivated supporters you need to win. Both sides may be right, and that makes me as pessimistic as I’ve been about getting a legalization initiative passed in 2012. An initiative that can both end prohibition in a smart way and win at the ballot box is possible, but I’m not so sure we have one yet.
5:43: It’s just started, and Tom Rasmussen his speaking and I think I’ve already fallen asleep. Since it’s what journalist do: I’ll note that Nick Licata and Jean Godden couldn’t be bothered to show up.
5:54: 4 speakers, all for putting transit on the ballot but it’s been from $40 to $80.
5:56: Nobody likes the funding mechanism. I’d also rather it be progressive. But compared to the sales tax, well at least people who can’t afford a car don’t have to pay for it. If the legislature ever decides to let locals have a progressive income tax, I’ll support that more.
6:02: I feel like I used to go to more of these things until I was a more regular writer at HA. Now when I see one I think I have to grab my laptop and take it with me to do a post like this. So then I’m too lazy to go at all. This is a neurosis, I think.
6:11: First person wanting sidewalks. It’s still been overwhelmingly pro putting something on the ballot. John Fox was the only one opposed.
6:16: I should have mentioned but Jean Godden came in a while ago. Nick Licata still couldn’t be bothered to even show up to his job.
6:21: A lot of people talking about how this might be the only opportunity for a long time.
6:24: Also, a lot of mention that Seattle voters have been willing to support transit in the past.
6:27: Of course there’s a large difference between the $40 package with all or mostly roads and the $60 or $80 that has public transit, pedestrian, and bike funding.
6:38: A woman from the Low Income Housing Institute (I didn’t catch her name) speaking in favor of the full $80 is the first person of color speaking in the hour or so. Seattle process, I’m afraid.
6:46: I don’t know if they look down to write or the angle I’m at, but it looks like Jean Godden and Tim Burgess are nodding off.
6:50: There’s a baby outside the council chambers. Hi baby. Hi.
7:00: Overwhelmingly pro putting something on the ballot and overwhelmingly pro that being transit.
7:05: A lot of people mentioning that the higher package means that we have better projects. And better projects will sell the package better than a lower price tag.
7:13: Does more applause mean we take more time? Because I’ve been applauding most people, but I guess I don’t have anywhere else to go after the meeting.
7:24: A lot of people who own cars making a point of it, and of their willingness to pay. It’s something I’ve made a point of in the past.
7:27: Also, people made the point that we’re in competition with other cities. The ability to get around is a selling point for attracting people to work here, to go to school here, etc.
7:40: We’re done. Here’s my recap of the testimony: Most people want the full $80. The funding mechanism is bad, but perhaps there are ways to mitigate it. In terms of priority, I’d say transit was the most, then sidewalks, and fewer people spoke in favor of bike and road infrastructure, but I don’t think there’s opposition to those things.
Is this sort of thing helpful in a world where we have The Seattle Chanel, etc?
Some other things Rob McKenna could use a special session to pass:
Now you may say, “Carl, isn’t that just stuff you’d like to see in the regular session?” Yes, yes it is.
I’m glad the Democrats chose Patty Murray as Co-Chair of the bullshit deficit reduction committee*. To the extent that it’s almost certainly going to be an all cuts affair, I trust that the cuts she makes won’t be as godawful as some of her colleagues would make. It’ll probably be impossible to make cuts that aren’t godawful.
Her commitment to working people hopefully means that they won’t take quite the hit they’d take otherwise. And her work for veterans hopefully means that the military cuts will be things that ought to be cut and not the things that actually keep soldiers safe, or hurt their reintegration into society when they get home. She’s not really a firebrand, so hopefully she won’t draw the ire some people might in that position. Patty Murray: as good a choice as anyone for a committee that shouldn’t exist in the first place.
Also, one other thing. The Caucus piece linked above refers to her as the future “co-chairwoman” of the committee. I assume that means the Republican co-chair will also be a woman. Otherwise, let’s hear it for gender neutral language in the future.
6:30: The polls closed at 6:00 West coast time, so the results are slowly trickling in. As of 6:30, the advantage goes to the Republicans, who lead in every race with a small proportion of the precincts reporting.
You can follow the results here or here.
In a normal election I would point out that early returns typically favor Republicans. But this is no normal election!
6:50: Hmmm…the 32nd Senate District between Kapanke (R) and Shilling (D) is now a tie with 21% reporting. (But no time stamp change?) Kapanke is considered the most vulnerable of the six Republicans undergoing a recall.
6:55: Another results page.
6:57: Results are given as cool graphs here. (Well…they’ll be cool when more results come in anyway.)
6:59: With 24% reporting, Kapanke (R) surges to +2….
7:12: And with 26% reporting, Shilling (D) surges back to lead Kapanke by +2.
7:15: With 67% reporting in the 2nd senate district, Cowles (R) is leading Nusbaum (D) 59% to 41%. Cowles is obviously going to win. This is a seat that nobody thought was winnable for Democrats anyway.
7:19…in fact, I just saw a Tweet saying the AP has called it for Cowles. Score: Democrats 1, Republicans 1.
7:29: The Harsdorf (R)-Moore (D) race in the 10th district has been called for Harsdorf. Again, no surprise in this race.
7:34: In district 8, with 18% reporting, Pasch (D) is leading Darling (R) 57% to 43%.
7:36: Back in the 32nd, with 45% reporting, Shilling now leads Kapanke 53% to 47%. If results hold, Dems will take two seats away from the Republicans.
7:42: In the 18th, with 19% reporting, King (D) leads Hopper (R) by less than 1%. The exact tally: King 7,464, Hopper, 7,368.
7:54: With 95% reporting in district 14, I think we can call Olsen (R) over Clark (D). The score is 54% to 46%. This gives Republicans three wins. One Democratic incumbent is safe (from a previous election). The three remaining races tonight are the ones people thought would be close. Two look favorable for the Democrats and one is exceedingly close.
8:15: The race in the 32nd has now been called for Shilling (D). The current total is Shilling 55, Kapanke (R) 45% with 82% reporting.
8:37: In the 18th, King (D) now leas Hopper (R) by 27,123 to 25,951, which is 51% to 49%. That is with 97% of precincts reporting.
8:17: With 87% reporting in the 18th, the race remains incredibly close with King (D) 24,458 leading Hopper (R) 24,321.
8:31: Now with 63% reporting in the 8th, Pasch’s (D) lead over Darling (R) has shrunk to 51% to 49%.
It’s an election night!
Not so much in Washington. But it is in Wisconsin, where a series of recall elections are taking place against six Republican incumbent state Senators. The latest polls suggest that two, and maybe three, Democrats will win. But the elections are unprecedented in the modern era of polling, so anything could happen.
Please join us tonight for an evening of election-watching under the influence at the Seattle chapter of Drinking Liberally. We meet at the Montlake Ale House, 2307 24th Avenue E. Starting time is 8:00 pm, but a few folks will show up before then for dinner and early election returns.
Can’t make it to Seattle tonight? There are 233 chapters of Living Liberally, including thirteen in Washington state and six more in Oregon. Here are some other meetings over the next week:
If none of these works for you, consider starting a new chapter that does.
– Want!
– Moochers.
– I chose to blame you for not stopping me earlier.
– Metro will cut well used routes without the $20 increase in car tabs.
– Aside from the idea early on that Costco and Kemper Freeman are somehow exactly as ungrassroots as SEIU, this is an interesting piece on Eyman’s latest shitty initiative (h/t).
– I love Thrifty Thursdays.
I.
Hate.
Mike.
Mc.
Ginn.
And.
Taxes.
Do you remember what we learned about Jane Hague the last time she ran for the King County Council sixth district seat?
KUOW‘s Amy Radil has an interesting profile of the candidates for this seat. The story begins with a reminder:
Jane Hague was first elected to represent the Eastside on the King County Council in 1994. She’s always won reelection fairly easily, despite some personal mishaps. Mostly recently, in 2007, she was arrested for driving under the influence. And her then–opponent revealed that Hague, King County’s former elections director, did not have a college degree from Western Michigan University as she’d claimed.
Hague denied ever intentionally deceiving anyone about her education.
But a public records request from King County shows that Hague put a Bachelor of Science degree from Western Michigan University on her resume when she applied for the elections job in 1986.
You can listen to the audio version here:
[audio:http://www.kuow.org/mp3high/mp3/News/20110808_ar_hague.mp3]
So, besides getting pulled over and arrest after blowing a 0.14, an incident in which she verbally abused the arresting officers, we also learned that Hague got her career in government started by lying about having a college degree on her application for King County’s manager of records and elections.
And somehow the fake degree perpetuated:
But Hague denied intentionally providing incorrect information and initially said she was puzzled at how several “Who’s Who” books, The Seattle Times, the Municipal League of King County and the National Association of Counties all reported erroneously that she had a bachelor’s degree from Western Michigan University.
Two things. First, let’s not forget the real victim here. Until this became public, the lack-of-degree secret must have been a horrible burden for Jane. Imagine knowing you built your entire career on a fabrication that your political opponents could easily uncover.
I mean, a burden like that can drive one to drink!
Second, electing Jane Hague to King County Council after she lied to get an appointment to King County Elections Director, seems akin to…well, sort of like hiring the person who just robbed you as your Head of Security.
I think it’s likely that Jane Hague and Richard Mitchell will be the top two coming out of the primary. But let’s not make it easy for Hague. If you’re eligible to vote for this race, be sure to vote…for someone other than Jane.
Get that ballot off your kitchen table and into the mailbox!
In case you missed this one, the 84-year-old mayor and city commissioners of Oak Hill, Florida fired their entire police department after police found some pot plants growing in the mayor’s yard. The mayor says they were secretly planted there by the cops, the cops sound like a real life version of Reno 911, and even if I didn’t mention it, you probably could’ve guessed that this all took place in Florida. Just watch the local news report at the bottom of the article. God help us all.
Last week’s contest was won by Gordy. It was Baring, WA, which may lose it’s historic post office due to federal cutbacks.
This week’s contest is a random location somewhere in the world. Good luck!
Luke 19:29-34
As he approached Bethphage and Bethany at the hill called the Mount of Olives, he sent two of his disciples, saying to them, “Go to the village ahead of you, and as you enter it, you will find a colt tied there, which no one has ever ridden. Untie it and bring it here. If anyone asks you, ‘Why are you untying it?’ say, ‘The Lord needs it.’”Those who were sent ahead went and found it just as he had told them. As they were untying the colt, its owners asked them, “Why are you untying the colt?”
They replied, “The Lord needs it.”
Exodus 20:15
Thou shalt not steal.
Discuss.
It seems like the secretive American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) isn’t so happy about being less of a secret now:
Yesterday, at a conference in New Orleans, two ThinkProgress reporters were attacked by security guards for no apparent reason. Reporters Scott Keyes and Lee Fang were at the Marriott Hotel for the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) annual meeting, an event that brings together state lawmakers with corporate lobbyists to draft “model” legislation.
While we stood by the second floor lobby of the conference hotel, security guards surrounded us, demanding that we leave. As we were leaving, they approached us, violently pushed us and twisted our arms. A guard approached Fang from behind, tackling him and later bending his arm to take his camera. Keyes, faced similar treatment: two security guards roughed him up on the escalator, taking his video camera, and cutting Keyes’ hand as he attempted to leave the premises. As Keyes asked why he was being forced to leave, he was shoved from the back.
Asked why they were being so belligerent, the security guards said they were acting on instructions from ALEC.
The video is here.
I’m sure we all remember this:
Washington Gov. Chris Gregoire has vetoed key parts of a bill that aimed to regulate medical marijuana dispensaries.
Gregoire said Friday she could not approve the measure after the state’s two U.S. attorneys said that state regulators would not be immune from prosecution. A union that represents thousands of state employees asked Gregoire to veto the bill.
“I will not subject my state employees to federal prosecution. Period,” Gregoire told reporters before signing parts of the bill into law.
At the time, there was no shortage of people pointing out the absurdity of Gregoire’s belief. And since then, even Republican Governor Chris Christie allowed New Jersey’s medical marijuana dispensary regulations to move forward. But now you can add another name to the list of those who find it absurd that the Department of Justice would arrest state employees:
The Department of Justice.
From Raw Story:
The Department of Justice filed on legal brief on Monday that indicated the federal government would not prosecute state employees for implementing state medical marijuana programs, according to the Marijuana Policy Project.
The brief asks for a lawsuit filed by Arizona Governor Jan Brewer (R) to be thrown out.
…
The Department of Justice said Brewer’s claims had no merit, noting that her lawsuit failed to provide credible evidence that state employees were under threat of imminent prosecution.
Unlike Arizona, though, where the voters passed a law that set up dispensaries, we’re left with a giant mess. So much so that the Municipal Research and Services Center still isn’t entirely clear on what cities can do to regulate medical marijuana production and distribution. Here’s part of their page on the new law:
Cities and counties can place zoning restrictions and impose licensing requirements on collective gardens, but it is not clear whether local governments can totally prohibit them, so long as the collective gardens comply with the restrictions on the numbers of plants and numbers of qualified patients. See Sections 403 and 1102 of E2SSB 5073. Also, Chapter 69.51A RCW still allows a “qualified patient” or a “designated provider” to possess a quantity of Cannabis not exceeding a 60-day supply for a patient, which has been interpreted in the regulations as including up to 15 Cannabis plants, so individual gardens are clearly allowed. [If you have been following this webpage recently you will notice that we have changed our interpretation twice on the issue of whether collective gardens can be prohibited. That is a measure of how we are struggling with interpretation of the provisions that go into effect on July 22nd.]
Of course, this hasn’t stopped numerous cities from imposing moratoriums, meaning that a judge will likely sort it all out once a local jurisdiction tries to arrest someone who’s following the law.
UPDATE: More from Dominic Holden and Steve Elliott.
UPDATE 2: According to Dan Catchpole of the SnoValley Star, North Bend may be the first municipality to have its collective garden moratorium challenged in court.
Eager to share our brilliant political commentary and blunt media criticism, but too genteel to link to horsesass.org? Well, good news, ladies: we also answer to HASeattle.com, because, you know, whatever. You're welcome!