Washington legalization...

[yortbogey]

plz get the facts....

Part V on "driving under the influence of marijuana" sets a per se DUI limit of active blood THC levels at greater than or equal to 5 nanograms per milliliter. Some medical cannabis advocates are concerned that this will lead to DUI convictions for medicinal cannabis users, who are driving with blood THC levels greater than or equal to 5 nanograms per milliliter.[11] If a suspect's blood tests for more than 5 nanograms/ml, under I-502 they would be guilty of DUI by definition, as opposed to the current law, RCW 46.61.502(1)(a) which requires proof of "impairment" for a conviction.

 

[yortbogey]

the actual initiative......

http://www.newapproachwa.org/sites/newapproachwa.org/files/I-502 bookmarked.pdf

 

[minds_I]

I really dont understand how so many icmag members would want this bill passed.It will take away everyone's right to grow their own.Only large licensed entities will be able to produce marijuana.All personal grows will be illegal.And did also consider the DUI clause of the bill?Uninformed/uneducated voters is why this country is fucked up now!!!!!!

Hello All,

Whats wrong with that?

And, they have alcohol laws in Washington as well, does not stop you from brewing your own does it?

minds_I


EDIT: Aftert further reading, I am under the conclusion that this would still make the backyard grower an illlegal operation. But I think things will change.

 

[minds_I]

plz get the facts....

Part V on "driving under the influence of marijuana" sets a per se DUI limit of active blood THC levels at greater than or equal to 5 nanograms per milliliter. Some medical cannabis advocates are concerned that this will lead to DUI convictions for medicinal cannabis users, who are driving with blood THC levels greater than or equal to 5 nanograms per milliliter.[11] If a suspect's blood tests for more than 5 nanograms/ml, under I-502 they would be guilty of DUI by definition, as opposed to the current law, RCW 46.61.502(1)(a) which requires proof of "impairment" for a conviction.

And while I am at it...is it ok then that people on oh lets say Oxycontin (Sp) for them to drive while medicated? After all, its a perfectly legal drug if prescribed.

Can't have it both ways. If you are highly medicated (please pardon the punn) you should not drive. I have driven very stoned before I know it is not as safe as not stoned so don't go down that road please its an old retort to a logical conclusion.

Now, at what level is one considered stoned and in-capacitated to a point that is at least the minimum of that of alcohol.

There needs refinement to be sure.

minds_I

 

[SMOKE-ONE]

Y'all really do not get it.They're taking away your right to grow.

 

[Nirvana_Papaya]

As it is right now, no one but medical patients and caregivers have the right to grow. I-502 does not change that. Medical grows will still be legal.

 

[hempluvr]

Part V on "driving under the influence of marijuana" sets a per se DUI limit of active blood THC levels at greater than or equal to 5 nanograms per milliliter. Some medical cannabis advocates are concerned that this will lead to DUI convictions for medicinal cannabis users, who are driving with blood THC levels greater than or equal to 5 nanograms per milliliter.[11] If a suspect's blood tests for more than 5 nanograms/ml, under I-502 they would be guilty of DUI by definition, as opposed to the current law, RCW 46.61.502(1)(a) which requires proof of "impairment" for a conviction.


That is fucked up right there. They need to leave med patients out of that shit. They also need to show proof of impairment. I can drive a car just fine stoned....and when way to stoned I simply do not drive. But medicated from a bong rip or joint,that does not impair me in any way. As I am sure most of you are the same.

 

[SMOKE-ONE]

As it is right now, no one but medical patients and caregivers have the right to grow. I-502 does not change that. Medical grows will still be legal.

From my understanding of the law,medical patients will be stripped of the right to grow and only licensed producers will be able to grow.Can anyone please post a copy or a link to the part of the bill that protect patients rights.If Im wrong which I really hope I am I want to apologize for my earlier remarks.But if I am right,any grower who supports this bill has to be out of there fucking mind.

 

[Nirvana_Papaya]

http://www.newapproachwa.org/sites/...Backgrounder - Medical Marijuana - 073012.pdf

Says it all right there, the quote you want is:

"• I-502 amends Washington’s Uniform Controlled Substances Act, codified at Chapter 69.50 of the Revised
Code of Washington, 3 and makes no changes to the Medical Use of Cannabis Act. Patients will continue to
be allowed to grow their own marijuana plants and possess a 60-day supply of medical marijuana.
4"

 

[SMOKE-ONE]

http://www.newapproachwa.org/sites/newapproachwa.org/files/I-502%20Backgrounder%20-%20Medical%20Marijuana%20-%20073012.pdf

Says it all right there, the quote you want is:

"• I-502 amends Washington’s Uniform Controlled Substances Act, codified at Chapter 69.50 of the Revised
Code of Washington, 3 and makes no changes to the Medical Use of Cannabis Act. Patients will continue to
be allowed to grow their own marijuana plants and possess a 60-day supply of medical marijuana.
4"

But which section in the actual initiative protects patients rights.I scanned thru it ,but didnt see it mentioned....Think it might be the old "bait and switch".Hope not though.

 

[Nirvana_Papaya]

Sadly, the law doesn't protect patients fully. It only protects them the same amount as everyone else. Up to 1oz, and only if they are over 21. So minimal protection for patients. Medical grows and meds over 1oz looks like they will treated like they are now. Which is basicly up to the cops making the bust. Can still use medical defense in court if they decide to arrest you. (thought there was better protection in I-502) but regardless, this is an improvement over current conditions.

 

[SCF]

State could be test case in marijuana legalization

State could be test case in marijuana legalization

State could be test case in marijuana legalization
How would the federal government respond if Washington voters pass Initiative 502 and legalize recreational marijuana sales. Arrests of state-licensed marijuana growers? A big legal fight in federal court? Or would the feds leave the state alone?

http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2019235344_marijuana23m.html?prmid=4939

By Jonathan Martin
Seattle Times staff reporter


In the waning days of a campaign to legalize marijuana in California two years ago, all nine ex-directors of the Drug Enforcement Administration simultaneously urged Obama officials to come out in strong opposition.

The pressure worked: Attorney General Eric Holder declared his office would "vigorously enforce" the federal ban on marijuana "even if such activities are permitted under state law."

Whether that was a real threat or just posturing is unclear: California voters rejected Proposition 19.

The test case instead could be Washington, where voters on Nov. 6 will decide whether to directly confront the federal ban on marijuana and embrace a sprawling plan to legalize, regulate and tax sales at state-licensed pot stores.

Speculation on the potential federal blowback is rife.

Would the Obama administration pick a legal fight over states' rights to try to block Initiative 502? Would federal prosecutors charge marijuana growers and retailers, even if they are authorized by state law?

Or would — as some opponents and supporters predict — federal authorities denounce the law but largely leave Washington alone?

The Justice Department won't say. But legal and drug-policy experts, asked recently to speculate, say any federal response is likely to be dictated as much by politics as by law.

Seattle City Attorney Pete Holmes, an I-502 supporter who talks frequently with federal authorities, thinks the Justice Department would back off after "a long, intense, fairly high-level conversation" with campaign and state officials.

"In the end, I think the feds will go with the will of the voters," said Holmes.

"Whole new ballgame"

Since the legalization movement took hold in the 1970s, at least 11 states — most recently, Rhode Island in 2012 — and several large cities have stripped criminal penalties for possession of small amounts of marijuana, usually making it an infraction akin to a ticket.

Full legalization has been proposed and rejected by voters in Alaska, California and Nevada, and is on the ballot this November in Colorado and Oregon.

I-502 is the most comprehensive proposal yet. It legalizes one ounce of marijuana for people 21 and older, and creates a seed-to-store, closed, state-regulated monopoly estimated to raise more than $560 million in new taxes.

Details would emerge in a yearlong process at the Liquor Control Board, but a state fiscal analysis estimates I-502 would result in as many state pot stores — 328 — as there were state liquor stores, with 363,000 customers consuming 85 metric tons of pot, all of which would have to be grown in Washington state.

That would be a "whole new ballgame" demanding federal action, said Kevin Sabet, a former senior drug-policy adviser in the Obama administration. He predicts the federal funding that requires a drug-free workplace could be endangered, as could federal highway and law-enforcement grants.

"These are the options that would be on the table," said Sabet, an opponent of I-502. "The idea that a state can collect funds, collect taxes off an illegal activity — I can't imagine that would be allowed."

Federal criminal prosecution of users, growers or sellers also would be an option. A 2005 U.S. Supreme Court case, Gonzales v. Raich, upheld the power of federal agents to arrest and prosecute medical-marijuana patients, in part because that pot could cross state lines.

An attorney in that case, Georgetown law professor Randy Barnett, said the legal arguments would be "even more forceful for recreational marijuana."

"Washington state is its own boss under criminal law, but what they say doesn't affect the federal government's authority to enact the Controlled Substances Act," Barnett said.

It's unclear, however, whether it would use that power. The DEA views all medical-marijuana dispensaries as illegal but has selectively enforced federal law. Last month, the agency sent cease-and-desist letters to about 26 of the estimated 150 dispensaries in the Seattle area, citing their proximity to schools. Most dispensaries, however, stay in business.

Should I-502 pass, arrests may have to wait until December 2013. By then, the state Liquor Control Board would begin issuing grower, processor and retailer licenses — and federal law would be violated on an industrial scale.

"Supreme law of the land"

By then, I-502 may already have its day in federal court.

One of the most-discussed possibilities is for federal prosecutors to seek an injunction blocking Initiative 502, based on Article 6 of the Constitution, which makes federal law "the supreme law of the land," pre-empting state laws when they conflict.

In a "pre-emption" challenge, federal lawyers could contend I-502 actively requires someone to break federal law. Such a challenge, for example, could hinge on requirements for the state to issue marijuana grower and retailer licenses, and to collect marijuana taxes.

Based on that theory, the Arizona attorney general, the Oregon Supreme Court and a California appeals court recently ruled that federal law partially pre-empted medical-marijuana laws in those states.

But University of Chicago constitutional law professor Aziz Huq said the history of pre-emption cases were "messy" and full of "internal contradiction." At times, the U.S. Supreme Court has been reluctant to toss state laws, he said, even when they conflict with federal drug laws, such as Oregon's assisted-suicide law.

"The bottom line is, the feds still could come in and bust marijuana shops, but the arguments to pre-empt (Washington state) law are weak," Huq said.

John McKay, the former U.S. Attorney who filed I-502, said he thinks the measure would survive a pre-emption challenge but hopes Congress, faced with a rebellion among states over marijuana law, would allow states to "opt out" of criminal prosecution in favor of strict regulation.

U.S. Attorney for Seattle, Jenny Durkan, declined to be interviewed, but sounded skeptical in an interview last year. "Every lawyer that I have talked to, including those who support the initiative, think that it will be pre-empted by federal law," she told The Associated Press.

Attorney Douglas Hiatt, a marijuana-legalization advocate who opposes I-502, agrees. "I think the feds would be in and out of court in 10 minutes. It's clearly in conflict with federal law," he said.

Both candidates for state attorney general — Democrat Bob Ferguson and Republican Reagan Dunn — oppose I-502, but say they would defend it if the state were sued.

Such a legal fight, however, itself would be good for marijuana advocates, said Allen St. Pierre, executive director of the legalization group NORML and an I-502 supporter.

"Usually we do not have the support of the elites, so the dissidents — NORML, the ACLU or other activists — have to go into courts alone," said St. Pierre. "This time, we could have Mr. McKay or the (state) attorney general representing us in a federal court. And that is why that dynamic — I-502 — is, to this activist, a ... dream."

Politicals "running for cover"

Earlier this month, the group of ex-DEA directors who opposed California's Proposition 19 spoke out again, urging the Obama administration to oppose I-502 and legalization measures in Oregon and California.

There has been no response thus far, and Gen. Barry McCaffrey, retired, who was drug czar in the Clinton administration, wonders if there will be one. He laments a "vacuum of leadership" in opposing "state laws that normalize marijuana use."

I-502, he predicted, would be a nightmare for employers with zero-tolerance policies and would exacerbate the state's "huge, chronic addiction problem."

Despite those problems, "politicians are running for cover" on marijuana, said McCaffrey, who recently registered to vote in Washington state and plans to vote against I-502.

"I don't think they want to say a word (before the election) because they'll lose votes, whichever way they go on it," McCaffrey said. "Once the election is over, I don't think any politician right now wants to be known centrally as being engaged in this issue."

Stewart Jay, an I-502 supporter and University of Washington law professor, agrees. "I'm very skeptical that this is something the federal government will want to spend its law-enforcement priorities on," especially if Obama wins re-election, Jay said.

"But it's anybody's guess, really."


Jonathan Martin: 206-464-2605 or jmartin@seattletimes.com. On Twitter

 

[vta]

Source: Seattle Times (WA)
Author: Jonathan Martin

POT FOES LACK ORGANIZATION, CASH

Election 2012

Even law-enforcement groups largely silent about initiative to legalize, tax marijuana

As one of the few public faces opposing marijuana legalization this year, Pat Slack has gotten hostile calls at home and work, calling him "Hitler," old and an idiot.

At a debate about Initiative 502 last month, he nearly lost his temper when a heckler interrupted him. "This is one of the reasons it's really hard to get people to come out and talk on this," Slack, head of the Snohomish County drug task force, told the heckler.

Just two weeks before ballots are mailed, it appears Slack will largely go it alone. State police groups and their allies in the drug-treatment community have not created a political committee to raise money or buy advertising.

Opposition is not a low-budget campaign; for law enforcement, it's a no budget campaign.

Police are not all sitting on the sidelines - a handful participate in debates - but the lack of organized opposition is notable against the well-funded I-502 campaign, with its big-name endorsers and recent $700,000 TV advertising buy.

King County Sheriff Steve Strachan, who announced his support for I-502 this week, thinks he knows why Washington cops are quiet.

"I can tell you, anecdotally, I'm not the only one who feels this way" in law enforcement, Strachan said. "One of the reasons you're not seeing a large, organized opposition is there are a lot of differences of opinion in the law-enforcement community."

His view is not universal: The Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs voted last November to oppose I-502, fearing broadening drug use and easier access for youth. But that group, which has restrictions on its political activities, has stayed silent, and the Washington Council of Police and Sheriffs ( WACOPS ), which is not restricted, also has not weighed in.

Nor has the Washington Association of Prosecuting Attorneys, the Washington Education Association, the Association of Washington Business or other business groups.

WACOPS executive director Jamie Daniels said the group would discuss I-502 at its fall membership meeting in Chelan next week. But she said her group, which has 4,000 rankand-file members, has been more focused on races for governor, attorney general and Legislature.

"They haven't exactly been calling me on this," said Daniels.

The Washington Association for Substance Abuse & Violence Prevention opposes I-502, but its president, Derek Franklin, said energy from grass-roots volunteers was tapped out by last year's fight against liquor privatization.

And fundraising against I-502 is challenging because the initiative's heavy excise tax on marijuana sales -projected to raise $560 million - - earmarks funding for the same groups that traditionally would oppose drug legalization, he said.

On the other side, I-502 hit the $4.1 million mark for cash and in-kind donations this week, allowing it to buy a second round of TV ads aimed for late October. Prominent endorsers, including former state and federal law-enforcement officials, helped persuade newspapers in Seattle, Spokane, Vancouver and Olympia to endorse I-502.

Campaign manager Alison Holcomb said she anticipated organized opposition but is pleasantly surprised to find little, which she attributes to I-502's tight regulations, including a continued ban on marijuana possession for people under 21.

"Those of us who contributed to drafting I-502 are pleased to see that our efforts to address public safety and public health concerns have reassured traditional opponents of marijuana law reform," she said.

It hasn't been so elsewhere.

In the 2010 failed campaign to legalize marijuana in California, opponents funded by the California Police Chiefs Association, medical groups and beer distributors spent $338,000 and rallied newspaper editorial boards to oppose the measure..

In Colorado, a legalization measure on the November ballot has drawn an organized opposition campaign supported by the business community, including the Denver Chamber of Commerce, as well as law-enforcement groups, the Democratic governor and the teachers union. Police are particularly motivated by the lack of a driving-while stoned provision in the measure in Amendment 64, said No on 64 spokeswoman Laura Chapin.

"For the business community, it's a branding issue: 'Welcome to Colorado, the marijuana state,' " said Chapin. Her campaign has raised more than $295,000.

Slack, the Snohomish taskforce commander, said fundraising against I-502 is challenging. Unlike last year's record-setting campaign for - - and against - liquor privatization, there appear to be few business interests invested in I-502's passage or failure, he said.

"To fight something like this, where would the money come from?" Slack said. "People are looking at this the wrong way: They're looking at getting tax dollars out of this. They're not looking at the damage to our youth."

If there are commercial interests at stake, they are in the medical-marijuana industry. Perhaps not surprisingly, the most vocal opposition has been No on 502, organized by medical-marijuana entrepreneur Steve Sarich, which has raised $5,700.

His group opposes I-502 largely because - unlike Colorado's measure - it includes a DUI provision that medical-marijuana patients fear would effectively criminalize their driving.

"I'm surprised there's not any opposition from the anti marijuana community, including folks like Drug Free America," Sarich said.

Washington Lt. Gov. Brad Owen sits on the advisory board of the Drug Free America Foundation, and opposes I-502. But Owen is focused on a tight re-election race, said his spokesman, Brian Dirks.

Skagit County Sheriff Will Reichardt, who opposes I-502, disagrees with Strachan that police are divided on legalization and sees I-502 as "just bad policy" that "sets the wrong message for youth." He recently debated former Seattle Police Chief Norm Stamper, a marijuana legalization advocate.

But Reichardt said he is too consumed with other issues, including the need for a new local jail, to focus on I-502.

"It's not the issue of the day for me," Reichardt said.

University of Washington political-science professor Matt Barreto noted I-502 has led in recent polls. But to hedge against complacency, I-502 backers should "be very wary" of a lack of opposition, and need to air a late campaign ad blitz, he said.

"When you're trying to change norms, you need a good justification," said Barreto. "Voters are reluctant on most initiatives: Do we want to change the law? When they don't have a lot of information, especially on something like this, they will lean toward no."

 

[vta]

Source: Seattle Times (WA)
Author: Danny Westneat

SHERIFF MAKES CASE FOR POT

It's startling enough that the King County Sheriff - not a retired cop, but the current sheriff - came out this week for legalizing pot.

But then there was the sheriff's reasoning. Part of it was even more unusual.

Legalizing marijuana will be better for the kids, he said.

Say what? This has got to mark some sort of psychological tipping point in the 40-year-long, mostly failed war on drugs.

Most all my life, back to when I was in high school during the "Just Say No" era, the bedrock rationale for keeping pot illegal was: It's for the kids. Even when people acknowledge it makes little sense for cops to root out and arrest adults for smoking pot, they often stumble over how an end to prohibition might affect the kids.

You don't want your kids to become stoners, do you? No. That has always been case closed in this debate.

But Steve Strachan, who was appointed sheriff this year and now is running to be elected to that job, on Monday turned that argument on its head.

Strachan, who is also the former Kent police chief, used to work in schools, including teaching the Drug Abuse Resistance Education ( DARE ) classes that were everywhere in the 1980s and '90s.

For all the warnings to kids about how marijuana is as illegal and harmful as, say, heroin, the end result is that more kids smoke pot today than smoke cigarettes. And find pot easier to get than alcohol.

"With alcohol being highly regulated, we're able to have a more reasonable discussion about it, in societies and in our families," Strachan told The Seattle Times' Jonathan Martin, in announcing his support for the pot-legalization Initiative 502 on this fall's ballot.

With pot, "people are sort of winking at it," he said. "It lives in this kind of limbo - it's illegal, but also not." So we have created an "ambiguous, confusing message we're sending to our kids."

Strachan's point is that society ultimately has a choice. Go all in with police-enforced prohibition, which so far hasn't worked well ( though some drug warriors argue we never went all in with it in the first place ). Or try what we do with cigarettes and alcohol. Legalize them, but also heavily tax and regulate them - including the enforcement of age restrictions.

Take cigarettes. Teen smoking in Washington state has dropped by about half since the 1990s, though cigarettes remain legal as ever for adults.

But that date roughly corresponds to the time we began taxing them to oblivion. As well as portraying cigarettes as death sticks, and smokers as modern-day lepers.

The initiative only makes pot legal if you're 21 or older. But I bet this question of how the proposed law may affect kids will decide the election. Those arguing to keep pot illegal certainly think so, as they keep bringing it up. Recently, a former adviser to White House drug czar Gil Kerlikowske summed up the pot measure like this:

"The bottom line is, if you care about young people succeeding in education and later in life in your state, then you don't want to legalize marijuana."

As a Dad, I have to admit that statement fills me with doubt about what we should do.

But as a former teenager, I can vouch that it matters less whether something is technically illegal than a ) how much it costs and b ) whether it's easy to score. As it is, we leave those decisions mostly up to the drug dealers.

Strachan's announcement means both candidates for King County sheriff now support legalizing pot. The other is John Urquhart, a former spokesman for the department who was also once a narcotics detective.

Core to their reasoning - and to Initiative 502 - is that in this case, the government's taxing and regulating powers may be far more potent than its police powers.

It's not often you'll hear that coming from the cops.

 

[Arthritis_sucks]

wow!

 

[SCF]

Wow is right, these are some great Reading!

 

[vta]

Yep...times are changing




Source: Herald, The (Everett, WA)
Author: Gene Johnson


GOP SENATE CANDIDATE FOR LEGALIZING POT

Michael Baumgartner Endorses I-502, While Sen. Maria Cantwell Opposes the Measure Over 'Concerns Expressed by Law Enforcement.'

SEATTLE ( AP ) - The campaign to legalize and tax marijuana for adults in Washington state is rolling as next month's vote approaches, with more than $1 million in new contributions reported since last week and a surprising endorsement Wednesday from Republican U.S. Senate hopeful Michael Baumgartner.

The money, most of it from retired Progressive Insurance founder Peter Lewis, means Initiative 502's backers have raised nearly $4.1 million over the course of the campaign, with $1.2 million left to spend. Alison Holcomb, campaign manager for New Approach Washington, says her group is planning a broader television campaign than the three-week advertising blitz it ran in Western Washington in August.

Meanwhile, Baumgartner's decision to endorse the initiative in an interview with The Associated Press gave the campaign one of its highest-profile Republican supporters yet. Baumgartner, a state senator from Spokane, is running a longshot bid to unseat Democratic U.S. Sen. Maria Cantwell, who came out against I-502 Wednesday afternoon.

Baumgartner said drug law reform isn't typically supported by his party, but he believes I-502 is a good step toward changing what he described as a wasteful policy of marijuana prohibition.

"It's taking a different approach to a very expensive drug war, and potentially a better approach," Baumgartner said. "They've checked all the boxes as far as what you would want to see happen in terms of provisions to keep it away from children and limiting access in the public space. I've just been impressed with the initiative and the people running it."

Asked for her position, Cantwell issued a written statement.

"While I remain a strong supporter of our state's medicinal marijuana laws, I don't believe it should be legalized for recreational purposes based on concerns expressed by law enforcement and the current drafting of the initiative," she said. "Whatever the result, I will honor the will of the voters' decision in November."

I-502 would legalize possession of up to an ounce of marijuana under state law for those over 21. The state would license growers, processors and retail stores, and impose 25 percent taxes at each stage. State analysts have suggested it could bring in hundreds of millions of dollars a year.

The measure, which polls show leading, would also set a blood-test limit for driving under the influence and prohibit public use of the drug.

Marijuana would remain illegal under federal law, and the burning question remains whether the Justice Department would sue to try to block I-502 from taking effect if it passes, on the grounds that it conflicts with federal law. The DOJ could also simply seize any tax revenue as proceeds of illicit drug transactions.

Washington is one of three states, along with Oregon and Colorado, considering legalization measures this year.

I-502 has received high profile endorsements from former Seattle FBI head Charles Mandigo, former U.S. Attorneys John McKay and Kate Pflaumer, both candidates for sheriff in King County, and the nonprofit Children's Alliance, which argues that drug laws disproportionately hurt minority children.

The initiative's only formal opposition comes from a group representing medical marijuana patients who say the DUI limit is so strict it could prevent them from driving at all, but some other organizations, including the Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs, are also opposed.

 

[yortbogey]

winds of change blow hard thru WA...
and the vote will tell......

 

[Hammerhead]

I cant wait for a state to take the lead on legalizing cannabis..We all know that our state laws wont protect us from the DEA.. We need an all out fight in the courts. The state of Washington vs the DEA. Until we get cannabis rescheduled its always going to be a problem for us all...Even if Washington votes in the legalization of cannabis.. I see a new DEA office opening in that state if it passes. We all do what we believe is the right path to take. Do it all by the book vote it in. That's great and I support any state that does this.. Unfortunately the DEA will be our biggest fight. They dont want to lose the cash they get for exterminating cannabis and would also lose jobs if they dont have to worry about cannabis like they do today. I think cannabis is there cash cow..

 

[Marquis de Sod]

Watched the Debate on 502 last night

Watched the Debate on 502 last night

From what was said in the debate, and the way i read the law in the voters' pamphlet, i gotta side with the NO side.

#1, it's just going to hammer anybody getting pulled over for a dui. lets face it. the Reasonable cause thing is out the window because the cops already needed to have it to pull you over in the first place. then if they smelled it, which they will, you are screwed. and 5 nanograms? Get real! if you smoked it a week ago, you're goin downtown.

#2, it will legalize NOTHING because the federal laws aren't going anywhere. it will just turn WA into a great big Shit fight, like what's going on in Cali.

#3, Did you see the cost of the permits to grow? Are they out of their fucking minds? Who has $1250 to grow fucking pot plants?

#4 25% SALES TAX ON EVERY TRANSACTION! Grower to distributor, distributor to retailer. pot will NOT be cheaper. You will not enjoy paying your state sales tax Quarterly and the MASSIVE FINES FOR PAYING THEM LATE.

We are better off without this turd. just mtc's.