(Seattle Times) New Approach Washington said Tuesday it received $100,000 from Harriet Bullitt, a philanthropist and environmentalist from one of the state’s most prominent families.
And by the end of next week it expects to have $200,000 more from Progressive Insurance Chairman Peter Lewis, who already has given $50,000.
Initiative 502, would legalize up to an ounce of dried marijuana; 1 pound of marijuana-infused product in solid form, such as brownies; or 72 ounces of marijuana-infused liquids. People over 21 could buy marijuana at state-licensed stores.
I think it’s important for all marijuana supporters to understand completely what I-502 will also do: create a per se DUID standard that defines 5 nanograms of THC per milliliter of blood as “impaired” for all drivers age 21 and over [Sec. 31 (2)(c)(i)]. Worse, it created “zero tolerance” DUID for those under 21; detection of any cannabis or metabolite would be treated as an impaired driver [Sec. 31 (2)(c)(ii)]. A first offense is an immediate 90 day license suspension, a second offense is a two year suspension [Sec. 32 (2) & (3)].
The offense is a “gross misdemeanor” and if sentenced like alcohol DUI, according to this Washington Courts Sentencing Grid, it works out to at least 15 days of “electronic home monitoring” if you have a clean record and a mandatory 24 hours in jail if you have no prior DUIDs. Even on a first offense your jail term can be as long as a year and fines can be as high as $5,000. Don’t forget the mandatory drug rehab you’ll have to attend.
It is stunning that New Approach Washington would proceed with such a scientifically-unjustifiable standard for driving under the influence. This same battle played out prominently in Colorado where a 5ng/ml standard was stopped when a local patient/reporter tested at 13.5ng/ml after fifteen hours of abstinence. I-502 would create “stoned drivers” subject to arrest and jail who aren’t impaired drivers, especially among the 18-to-21 age group that uses marijuana at greater rates than older demographics. A University of Washington freshman trying marijuana for the first time Saturday night after the Huskies game could be jailed as an impaired driver Monday night!
It’s also important to note what isn’t in the New Approach proposal: home growing. You will only be able to access your one ounce of cannabis from Washington State Cannabis Stores whose growers are licensed by the state Liquor Control Board. If you’re caught with a single seed or plant, you’re still subject to a felony with a $10,000 fine and up to 5 years in prison.
It’s a tough call. A headline reading “Washington State Legalizes Marijuana”, especially with sales and state control, would be a huge victory and would completely change the national debate on legalization. But is it worth making criminals of unimpaired cannabis users who drive and maintaining the criminality of home growers? I live in Portland, so I don’t get to vote. Let’s just say I’d look forward to crossing the river into Vancouver a bit more if it passes, but only if someone else drives.
Washingtonians, you do have another choice with Yes, End Penalties, which would simply remove the criminality of cannabis, period, and leave its regulation up to the state legislature. Unfortunately, they don’t have $300,000 to work with.
Loading ...
[...] primary concerns with I-502 is the oft-discussed-on-this-blog 5ng/mL per se DUID standard of THC in blood, the zero tolerance DUID for those under 21, and the lack of home growing provisions that hand a [...]
I want to help with legalizing cannabis in WA state.My email I redfrogjw@aol.com my names Jessica :)
There is no way that Yes, End Penalties will be able to qualify for the ballot when Sensible Washington couldn’t.
The stuff about the DUID is awful. Lack of home-grow even worse. Such is progress.
I-502 is a government sting disguised as reform. The proposed law has no chance of surviving a court challenge based upon its requirement that all participants incriminate themselves by registering. The case law on this issue is plentiful and unanimous. This issue is not subject to debate. I am astounded that so many intelligent well-meaning people are able to ignore this glaring flaw and support the proposed initiative. I will assume they are not aware of the law on the subject, which I discuss below. Perhaps you can share this with them and with the public.
What’s wrong with a state law that attempts to legalize and regulate cannabis through a system requiring that participants register with the state or be licensed by the state? One federal judge recently called the idea delusional. Confidential records held by state authorities can and will be subpoenaed by federal law enforcement.
In the most recent litigation of the issue records reflecting registration by persons participating in Michigan’s medical marijuana program were subpoenaed by the DEA. Below are excerpts from the recent case of U.S. v. Michigan Department of Community Health, United States District Court, Western District of Michigan, Case 1:10-mc-00109-HWB Doc #23 Filed 06/09/11. Michigan adopted a medical marijuana law which included registration provisions. The law provided confidentiality for those who registered. The DEA subpoenaed those records. The federal judge who heard the case not only upheld the validity of the subpoena, he ridiculed the people who had imagined that a state law could trump the federal law:
“When Michigan adopted the MMMA with its confidentiality provisions, it, of course,
only changed Michigan law. The very text of the MMMA recognizes that “federal law currently prohibits any use of marijuana” (MCL § 333.26422(c)). Thus, anyone who is not deluding himself or trying to push an agenda knows that the confidentiality provisions are only binding on the State of Michigan and its agents, not the federal government and its agencies.”
Page 12
At page 13 of his opinion the judge continues:
“The nationwide federal law against marijuana, and the nationwide federal organizations that enforce that law, were the same the day after Michigan adopted the MMMA as they were the day before. They did not go away. Thus, no reasonable person can expect to have a right of privacy from federal investigation when they violate federal laws. The MMMA card affords its holder no greater cloak of privacy than did the emperor’s new clothes.7 To believe the contrary is simply to close one’s eyes to reality. But when you open your eyes, the emperor is still naked; the elephant is still in the room.
7The reference, of course, is to Hans Christian Andersen’s fairy tale about an emperor who was convinced by swindlers to believe he was wearing beautiful clothes, when in fact he was naked.” (footnote in original)
I 502 is quite specific about this issue. It modifies RCW 69.50.500 to require that the Liquor Control Board cooperate with federal law enforcement agencies. This is the same agency that is given the responsibility to license and regulate cannabis. If that’s not a sting operation, I respectfully await some other explanation.
Jeff Steinborn
It seems the elitist circle’s must aways keep the hooks in people…I agree that this is a big step forward & we then let these restrictions be the NEW BATTLEGROUND. Buy in the stores legal is not going to stop private grows…when it passes the obvious will reveal itself. They are trying to find a rhetorical framework that can muster the present voting ‘body politic’. It will take more “Cannabis like Wine” modus like the Republican try in Cali 2012. Judge James Gray & Dana Rohrabacher KNOW their stuff…get them the signatures.
…admittedly I live in a state that has no decrim, no mmj. But imho I feel unifying behind this, even despite all its flaws will help the overall movement. Its going to take compromise to see progress, & Remember you can still continue the fight to fine tune the law once its in effect. Besides the biggest immediate effect the law will have is to begin a long Fed vs States Rights case that we are long overdue for, by the time its finally settled more people will be educated about the truth.
[...] New Approach Washington set to add $300,000 in funding for marijuana legalization with awful per se DUID standard var addthis_product = 'wpp-262'; var addthis_config = {"data_track_clickback":true,"data_track_addressbar":false,"ui_language":"en"};var addthis_options = "facebook,email,twitter,tumblr,stumbleupon,google_plusone,facebook_like";if (typeof(addthis_share) == "undefined"){ addthis_share = [];}New Approach Washington set to add $300,000 in funding for marijuana legalization with awful per se …: [...]