NORML has officially endorsed the New Approach Washington I-502 marijuana legalization measure.
UPDATE: If you’ve perused the Patients Against I-502 website, you’ll find NORML Board Member Jeff Steinborn listed as opposing I-502. You’ll also find that group, which claims this NORML Board Member as a supporter, highlighting his opposition to I-502. Now, that’s funny, because according to the recorded vote of the NORML Board of Directors:
- YES – Paul Kuhn (head of Tennessee NORML)
- YES - Norm Kent (board of Florida NORML)
- YES – Dan Viets (head of Missouri NORML)
- YES – Dale Gieringer (head of California NORML)
- YES – Steve Dillon (former head of Indiana NORML)
- YES – Greta Gaines (new board member, allied with Tennessee NORML)
- YES – Madeline Martinez (head of Oregon NORML and World Famous Cannabis Cafe)
- YES – Bill Panzer (co-author of California’s Prop 215)
- YES – George Rohrbacher (former Washington rep and allied with Washington NORML)
- YES – Keith Saunders (former head of MassCann/NORML)
- YES – Allen St. Pierre (NORML Executive Director)
- YES – Keith Stroup (NORML Legal Counsel)
- YES – Jeff Steinborn (NORML Legal Committee attorney in Washington)
Now, the “Patients Against Pragmatism” will whine that it’s a 15-member board, and that’s a 13-0 vote, so where’s the other two? They’ve tried to intimate* that the two abstentions due to absence included Steinborn, but that’s just not true. The two abstentions had submitted their votes by proxy and they were never entered, because if it’s 13-0, there’s no need to enter them; it doesn’t change the outcome. However, let the record show:
- YES – Dr. Lester Grinspoon (father of modern medical marijuana, vote proxied to Keith Stroup)
- YES – Richard Wolfe (former NORML Director, vote proxied to Dale Gieringer)
* “We also must add, two abstentions does not equate to a unanimous decision. A unanimous decision is a yes vote from every single member of the board. Who was the other absent member? Could they perhaps have concerns about endorsing a faulty initiative that will cause unimpaired drivers to be convicted of DUI? Could that be why they were also absent? So their reputation, like Jeff’s, is not associated with such hijinks?”
This presents a dilemma for me, as some of my most respected colleagues and good friends in the movement in Washington State are opposed to I-502 and working for grassroots efforts to place other legalization initiatives on the ballot.
Their 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 monopoly on marijuana production and sales to the state, a move that will likely be challenged by the feds and perhaps not implemented by a state that was gun-shy on even opening medical dispensaries, lest a state worker get busted by the feds.
Let’s start with the monopoly over weed. Currently, nobody but patients can grow their own marijuana in Washington State. After I-502, patients will still be able to grow their own and the state will be able to grow its own the state will license private producers to grow and sell to state stores. So, no fewer people get to legally grow weed with I-502 and current weed growers could become legit businesses. Nobody is forcing you to buy and smoke the state store weed. People who are growing weed illegally now will still do so. So there’s no change for your illegal source of weed and potentially a new legal source of weed. Plus, with competition, your illegal source of weed will become cheaper* as the growers fight to keep up with the scale of production the state’s licensed growers can muster. Finally, keep in mind that Washington State had until last election a state monopoly on distribution of alcohol. Business interests lobbied to get that law changed, so now there is business competition in alcohol. Why couldn’t that happen down the road for marijuana?
Then there is the fact that I-502 only allows you to possess a mere one ounce and only purchased† and purchase it from a state shop, which will probably be enjoined by the federal government. You still can’t home grow. However, that one ounce legalization changes everything, not just in Washington State, but nationwide. Legalization is no longer a concept; it’s a reality. The mere smell of weed is no longer a probable cause for cops to harass you. Possession of a dime bag and a pipe will no longer get you a mandatory 2-day jail stay and mandatory $500 fine and a “drug criminal” record that follows you around. For patients traveling with less than an ounce, they get true protection from arrest, not the “affirmative defense” (a.k.a. “get arrested and show your medical papers to the judge”) they currently have. Some of those patients with less need who don’t grow may even be able to save some money and forgo getting their doctor’s annual “permission slip”. Other states considering legalization will see the sky doesn’t fall. The feds challenging Washington’s state stores brings the prohibition fight back to the courts for the state’s rights showdown we need to move the issue forward.
I still want to see the legalization of home growing – every adult should be allowed to grow their own marijuana for personal use. But it will be much easier to convince the people or the legislature that people should be allowed to cultivate the marijuana they’re legally allowed to possess and the state legally grows licenses the growing of than to secure the right to home cultivation of something that is currently illegal that only criminals grow.
So why is it that when we want to protect the majority of healthy tokers from arrest in 2012, it’s “throwing patients under the bus”, but when we wanted to protect just the minority of sick tokers from arrest in 1998, it wasn’t “healthy tokers not allowed on the bus”? Why is it OK to approve all sorts of unscientific, unnecessary, and unjust regulations as the lesser evil to arresting sick tokers, but it’s not OK as a lesser evil to arresting healthy tokers? Nobody is throwing the patients under the bus. I-502 is just asking that the healthy tokers not have to sit in the back of the bus anymore and that the sick tokers ride one if they don’t drive well.
Opponents of I-502 who support legalization say this isn’t the right bill, that their legalization is the better option. I heard the same thing during the campaign for Prop 19 in California. That took $1.5 million to get on the ballot. It got 46.5% of the vote. During the campaign, the “Patients against Prop 19″ told us all Prop 19 was a bad law that would create corporate control of weed and hurt patients. “We’ll put a better initiative on the ballot in 2012, a presidential year!” they told us. Well, it’s 2012. California is not likely to have legalization on the ballot. The initiative furthest along, Regulate Marijuana Like Wine, has 30,000 sigs and $80,000 dollars (or maybe I have that reversed, regardless, way less than the 750,000 sigs and $1.5 million it needs by April 20 filing deadline [irony]).
I-502 is not the legalization I would write. I would include home growing. I’d not have a state monopoly. I’d have no per se DUID measures. I’d make the legal age 18. I’d have no limits on how much you could possess or grow. But I don’t have the ability to get that on the ballot. Neither do any of the grassroots legalization orgs listed in opposition to I-502 (and please, prove me wrong, but since 1996, no marijuana reform has made the ballot without billionaire backing except Prop 19, and that took one millionaire sinking his whole life savings into it.) And even if I did get it on the ballot, it would fail miserably, as the voters aren’t ready for that degree of marijuana freedom. It is not going to go from “deadly dangerous Schedule I drug that will lead your kids to heroin addiction and cause chaos on the freeways” to “as free as cigars” in one vote.
So we can complain about I-502′s flaws and vote against it, just like the DEA, the cops, and the Mexican drug cartels want you to vote, and we can direct our limited volunteer time, money, talent, and focus on other initiatives that will divide and confuse the electorate and dilute our base. Or we can get behind the initiative that has made the ballot, that does have major financial support, that does have unprecedented big-name law enforcement support, and is polling above 55% and we can vote to become the first state in America to legalize marijuana.
* I realize that if you are making a living dealing weed illegally, this does not sound like a positive to you. Sorry, but nobody deserves to profit from prohibition – not lawyers, prisons, drug rehabs, cops, governments, marijuana bloggers like me, or even gals and dudes who throw a light up in the closet and sell dime bags to friends just to break even on the electricity bill. While prohibition exists this profiteering is inevitable and for the consumer, the illegal grower is the only savior of the genetics and purveyor of the product we’ve got. But that grower should never stand in the way of ending the criminality of his consumer just to maintain his or her bottom line. If I’m fighting to put myself out of a job in the name of freedom, you should, too. (Actually, I think with legalization, both our jobs will flourish like never before… it’s not as if microbrews are becoming less popular and alcohol-themed writing doesn’t dominate sitcoms and the box-office…)
† Thanks to Paul Armentano for this correction. He points me to an e-mail to him, dated January 31, 2011, from New Approach Washington’s Alison Holcomb where she explains, ”The decriminalization of possession of marijuana is a stand-alone protection, and there are no requirements relating to how the marijuana was obtained. The only limitation is the amounts: one ounce useable marijuana, 16 oz. marijuana-infused product in solid form, 72 oz. of marijuana-infused product in liquid form, or any combination thereof [Sec 20 Para (3)].”
(3) The possession, by a person twenty-one years of age or older, of useable marijuana or marijuana-infused products in amounts that do not exceed those set forth in section 15(3) of this act is not a violation of this section, this chapter, or any other provision of Washington state law.
In other words, possession of an ounce is legal, period. Selling that ounce to someone is illegal. Buying that ounce from someone is illegal. Getting that ounce anywhere other than a state store is illegal. Growing that ounce is illegal. But once you possess it, it is legal. Shaky reasoning? Well, it’s no more shaky than presuming you’re a caregiver for one patient at a time who lines up in a queue at your storefront, and that shaky reasoning supports Washington’s medical dispensary industry. I’ll take legal possession of an ounce over criminal possession of an ounce any day.
Further corrections made to reflect changes on the “state monopoly” comments per clarification from Alison Holcomb in the comments – my apologies for my mistake in interpretation.
Contact your elected representatives and urge them to 'Stop Arresting Marijuana Smokers'. 
This opinion/summary of I-502 is one of the best I have seen for laying out the pros and cons of this bill. I agree it is not perfect, but it will move us forward and result in fewer arrests for both patients and non-patients in the state of Washington. Ultimately, to allow people the freedom to consume and grow a medicinal herb that neither harms them or anyone else is what we all want. I feel that I-502 moves us closer to that time.
[...] Dominic Holden called “Smokeless in Seattle” and NORML’s Russ Belville’s blog on why supporting I-502 with your vote this November is essential. I think Russ Belville is the [...]
[...] Dominic Holden called “Smokeless in Seattle” and NORML’s Russ Belville’s blog on why supporting I-502 with your vote this November is essential. I think Russ Belville is the [...]
Thank you, I don’t think it could be put any more clearly.
I live in Texas and we’ll never see medical marijuana unless a number of states outright legalize, if then. Voting against I-502 means voting against sick people across the country. Hell, across the world.
“self-absorbed” indeed
No, Neal, it is not, and it is offensive for you and others to keep saying so.
I-502 legalizes cannabis for everyone. Patient or not, you will be able to possess an ounce of buds, a pound of brownies, or 4.5 pints of tincture, with no threat of arrest.
I-502 maintains the current medical marijuana law, so if you are a patient, you can continue to be safe from prosecution for possession of up to 1.5 pounds of buds and 15 plants.
I-502 does not in any way change the procedures or standards law enforcement has to pull you over, suspect you’re impaired, and compel a blood draw. Those standards exist NOW, so if you truly are “over 5ng 24/7/365.25″, then you are risking a DUID prosecution every time you drive NOW. Believe me, if a cop pulled you over NOW, suspected you were impaired NOW, took you in for a blood draw NOW, and you came in at over 5ng/mL NOW, you would be presenting a slam-dunk DUID case to a prosecutor NOW. People are getting convicted of DUID NOW with as little as 1.6ng/mL – so a 5ng limit may actually give jurors a “legal limit” below which you wouldn’t be considered impaired, per se.
You are listening to the medical marijuana sellers and medical marijuana permission slip sellers that are protecting their financial best interests who are telling you I-502 means no patients can drive, ever, when, by their own standards, no patients should be driving NOW. You’re listening to people who’ve come to enjoy prohibition profits, tax-free retailing, and a sleep-til-noon, no paperwork, no bosses, no regulations lifestyle who don’t want to have to compete in a legalized market with modest profit margins.
However, you reveal your symptoms of “Patient Entitlement Syndrome” with your 4th paragraph. So I’m just a “self-absorbed legalizer” and a “recreational pothead”, huh? You’re sick, therefore your marijuana use is holy and just and acceptable, but I’m just a filthy doper, so I deserve a cage, huh? “Won’t get hassled?” huh? You mean like Rodney Neal Graham, a marijuana smoker in Douglas County, Georgia, who was left to writhe and die from a kidney disorder in a stinkin’ jail cell he was held in for possession of a few grams? While you’re sitting pretty in Washington with your pound and a half and fifteen plants and farmer’s markets with every selection of bud and oil and hash available, 10,000 “recreational potheads” per year in like me in Washington still get “hassles” like being arrested, convicted, jailed, expelled, evicted, looted, denigrated, sampled, rehabbed, robbed, and attacked over our petty few grams.
Oh, and by the way, you realize that not every medical marijuana patient is able to qualify in Washington State, right? So, many of us “recreational potheads” you say are “self-absorbed” may have PTSD, anxiety, depression, or some other condition that doesn’t qualify under Washington’s law. Some may have qualifying conditions, but lack the funds to see a doctor to build a medical records history or see a pot clinic doctor. Just last week, my wife had to tell a caregiver for an elderly man in hospice that she couldn’t get him any cannabis-medicated salve to rub on his bedsores and aching joints, because he’s not a patient. He certainly qualifies, but he can’t leave the hospice. The hospice doc won’t write a recommendation and the pot clinic doctors won’t make house calls. I guess he’s just some “pothead” who doesn’t want to get “hassled”, eh?
Once again, I will issue my challenge to all patients who oppose I-502 – I dare you to find one person in Washington State whom this will negatively affect. Washington’s had medical marijuana for thirteen years and has probably 100,000 patients who’ve driven hundreds of millions of miles. Out of that set, find for me the patient who:
…because the ONLY thing I-502 changes in that scenario is Step #8. That’s the step where you pay a DUID lawyer $10,000 to $15,000 to get you out of that DUID charge when you have a >5ng/mL blood test in evidence. (You are telling all your “over 5ng 24/7/365.25″ driving patient friends that they need to keep ten grand on hand to defend their DUID charges, right?) By the way, the DUID conviction rates in Colorado and California, regardless of ng/mL, are around 80%-90% NOW. The conviction rates for >5ng/mL are surely close to 100% NOW.
The mistake in reasoning you and other I-502 fearmongers are making is assuming that patients have the right to drive around NOW with >5ng/mL THC in their bloodstream. The other mistakes are ones of proportion and perspective. A DUID charge one doesn’t deserve is an injustice. Prohibition is an abomination. You tell me how I should tell a Mexican mother whose boy was just tortured and hung from a bridge for blogging about marijuana traffickers that we can’t begin legalizing marijuana this year because somebody who smokes pot all damn day might get a DUID they don’t deserve.
Russ – Yes it is throwing patients under the bus.
Maybe we should seize all money from anyone worth $100 million or mnore and divide it amongst the 350 million folks in the US? After all the vast majority benefit and less than 5% would be harmed, right?
What I-502 does is legalize cannabis for everyone EXCEPT MMJ PATIENTS. MMJ patients will effectively be precluded from driving, even if not impaired, because most MMJ patience will test over 5ng 24/7/365.25. As soon as they are tested, or refuse a test, their license is POOFED!
It is not just throwing MMJ patients under the bus, it is kicking them in the teeth and THEN throwing them under the bus… with the self-absorbed ‘legalizers’ promoting I-502 telling MMJ patients who do not like this to just shut up and vote in favor of something drastically against their own best interests just so some recreational potheads won’t get hassled.
Sorry but only the weak-willed and the moronic would do such a thing.
The authors could have exempted MMJ patients from the limit or stated a much higher limit for MMJ patients, but they did not. As such the DUI-C per se crap is nothing but a poison pill and if the measure fails, as I expect it to, it will be primarily due to this poison pill in the initiative.
[...] one of the oldest and most respected marijuana law reform organizations in the United States, has officially endorsed I-502. As expected, this has created another backlash from those within the reform community who [...]
@Recreational Russ,
Thank you. I appreciate your comments and rebuttals. Just wanted to let you know there are lots of people who agree with and applaud your efforts. Please don’t let these hypocrites wear your down, keep up the good fight.
@BNelson0403
I know it may not appear so lately, but I try to limit my public comments on “legalization” to issues that have a direct impact on patients. If you’ll drop me an email or give me a call, I’ll be happy to discuss Sensible Washington issues with you.
I’d also welcome your thoughts on how we can un-schedule cannabis. A rescheduling hearing may not be the best method since the governor completely dominates any decision made by the Board of Pharmacy….there might as well be mannequins in those chairs….at least it would cost the taxpayers less money.
The committee that decides which medical conditions qualify is also controlled completely by the governor. We are taking steps to impose rules on this committee, which currently makes up the rules as they go along (and I have that straight from the DOH).
I look forward to hearing from you….
Steve
steve@cannacare.org
@ RR
My reply to Friday’s show.
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xp3o61_norml-live-2nd-hour-february-24th-2012-those-who-would-trade-liberty-for-security_lifestyle
@Steve Sarich,
Im glad that we are on the same page with rescheduling. I like the way Timothy Leary approached a similar situation in 1969. I also think HR 2306 is a good match for our end goal. There are ways to un-schedule it, I just hope we find it soon!
I agree about the ever-changing definition of “legalization”. We need to stick to on definition and one strategy and follow it to the end. Good words Steve.
Another thing that we disagree on is Sensible Washington. I think that the approach that they are taking, to change laws on a state level has worked in the past with the repeal of the 18th Amendment. It started at a state level first. What do you think about that?
– You say that you gave as much support to I-502, as you did for SW. Whether that is fact or fiction, doesn’t matter. Its water under the bridge.
I just think that Sensible Washington was proposing exactly what NORML has said to have always supported. I think going balls out for Prop19 could have been equally applied to SW in 2011 when there wasn’t much going on politically. Thats my complaint. I think I-502 deserves no support, but that is just my opinion. If NORML supports it fine. But my overall point is, that Sensible Washington’s plan fits the NORML agenda more it seems. And it is similar to the Portugal model, so we know it works.
You seem to be confusing my comments and other people’s comments.
None the less, I have contributed money to NORML despite having a family and other pending responsibilities. I support NORML and I have said that I am glad that they have been active for 40 years, many of times.
I am concerned about these DUID laws. I think that they hurt more than help even in the big scope of things.
1. It is well known that most possession arrests come from traffic stops
2. Instead of getting a possession ticket, there will be a DUID charge in place of it.
Serves to reason anyway. And the defense in court is shot compared to current laws. If you have 5+ NG in your blood, thats the end of the story, there is no impairment defense. Current laws lets someone dispute the impairment charge a little easier.
Russ, we have our differences,yet on this I support you & NORML– Ryan is flaky on these initiative issues. He’s a guy who gave up cannabis for Jesus,yet when he needed it desperately for his health, came back on board the cannabis is good bandwagon.
There is a bunch of ‘sour grapes’ rebellion against I-502 when the SenWah 2011 & 2012 initiatives, we’d all like to see pass, isn’t adopted by petitioners. The triangulation on this I-502 is a strategic position the ‘I got mine’ crowd abhors,but will signal to the world that America LEGALIZES by the people— possession of sacred cannabis.
Had a difficult time with the great Vivian McPeak yesterday,and all his logical fallacy–which included me being told that since I don’t live in Wah,your opinion isn’t valid. I was comparing a person like me holding his nose and voting for WarBama because the alternative is Gingrich/Santorum–think it’s a fair analogy. We all see how the loss in California delayed our victory ,& this is shaping up to be another hellish imbroglio.
Oh, I almost forgot! You’re soooo concerned with the 18-20-year-olds, right?
Did you know Washington State has a .02 blood alcohol per se DUID for people aged 18-20?
I know .02 isn’t zero tolerance, but it may as well be. If you’re an 18-20-year-old male weighing 160lbs and drank a beer and got behind the wheel, you’d be at .02, but you certainly wouldn’t be impaired.
So are you organizing to amend that per se DUID? Where’s that compassion for all the 18-20-year-old college students (whom we know drink a little beer now and then) whose lives will be ruined by an alcohol DUI bust?
Somehow you’ve worked up all this worry over the <21-year-old who illegally smokes pot, gets behind the wheel, and gets an unimpaired per se DUID, so I imagine you must have the same worry over the <21-year-old who illegally drinks alcohol, gets behind the wheel, and gets an unimpaired per se DUID, right?
Why are you throwing all the beer drinking college students under the bus, Steve? Why do you tolerate an unscientific DUID standard for 18-20-year-old beer drinkers?
At least I’m consistent: I oppose all per se DUID laws, even for alcohol. Yes, there is plenty of science to show a dose-dependent relationship between alcohol and impairment, but it ain’t guaranteed. My dad was an alcoholic who was a great driver while drinking beer – he could drive fine on a .15 where regular drinkers would be sloshed at .08. I believe blood chemistry can be evidence to help prove impairment, but blood chemistry alone does not prove impairment, demonstrating impairment proves impairment.
I know .00 BAC and 0ng/mL THC drivers who are WAY more impaired by texting, putting on makeup, road rage, fatigue, or just being the horrible driver they naturally are. Our stupid DUID laws make it so we have a “relative” impairment standard rather than an “absolute”. For instance, say Granny, while completely sober, is a “C+” driver. She can’t see over the steering wheel, she’s in her eighties, can’t merge, drives 5mph slower than speed limits, has multiple fender benders on her record, etc. Say I’m an “A+” driver. Never wrecked, never cited, never stopped by a cop, ever. But if I smoke a joint, perhaps I’m now an “A-” driver – I drive a bit slower, leave more distance, etc. If we get into an accident, it is I who am going to be pilloried, not Granny, because she started the day a C+ and got into a wreck at C+, whereas I started at A+ but impaired myself to A-.
In other words, we don’t care if you are a good driver based on an objective standard (can you drive worth a shit?), but rather on a sliding scale (are you driving the best that you can?). So our DUID laws punish us not for being bad drivers under the influence of drugs, alcohol, or cannabis, but they punish us for reducing our abilities to drive as well as possible.
I’ve been writing this for years. You won’t find anyone who hates per se DUID for any substance moreso than myself. About the only thing I can think of that I hate worse than per se DUID is the per se criminality of possessing cannabis. I hate that I’ve been put in the position to accept a lesser evil to vanquish a greater evil. I’d much rather vote for Sensible Washington’s proposal, but it ain’t on the ballot!
You also fail to understand the greater politics of all this. This doesn’t go to a vote of 60-100K patients or even just 630K tokers – it is voted on by all 5.2M Washingtonians. 50% + 1 of them have to vote YES. It seems to me like ACLU-WA polled the electorate and found the biggest issues that would doom legalization at the ballot box are “What About the Children?!?” and “What About the Stoned Drivers?!?”. It seems to me like they figured a per se DUID would win over a much larger percentage of 4.5M non-tokers fearful of freeway carnage than it would lose the much smaller percentage of 630K tokers fearful of unfair DUIDs. It also seems to me that they made the shrewd political calculation that some of the 4.5M non-tokers would hear the complaints of those opposed to it and think, “well, if those toke-all-day stoners don’t like it, it has to be good!” Remember, we’re talking about your average soccer mom voter, who’s she going to trust, kindly Rick Steves and some former FBI and police chiefs that support I-502, or long-haired, tattooed, pierced, and dread-locked marijuana lawyers and medical pot activists seen throwing buckets of joints to 14-22-year-old kids each summer in the park?
In the last presidential election year, 3,071,587 Washingtonians voted. Even if every single patient in Washington voted against I-502, there would only need to be 3.3% of the non-toker vote necessary to counter that. So ACLU-WA must be betting that a per se DUID persuades far more YES votes than NO votes.
We can’t know if I-502 will pass. It’s at 47% right now, with 15% undecided in the latest polls. What I do know is that if this legalization fails, the next one proposed won’t get more liberal. The backers won’t presume that I-502 was too restrictive and that’s why it lost, they’ll presume the public wasn’t ready for even the limited legalization they had proposed. They won’t assume voters downed it because of something unfair to patients, they’ll assume voters downed it because it went too far. So you won’t likely see big name backers or funding come 2013, 2014, or 2015, and maybe not even in the next presidential go-round.
In the meantime, there will be more DEA raids on your quasi-legal dispensaries, and you’ll be crying to the greater toker community about how awful it is, and we’ll be wondering, “Wait, didn’t you guys organize to get patients to vote to keep us in cages last election? Well, enjoy yours.”
For the last time, Ryan…
NORML officially supports initiatives when they make the ballot.
We did not officially support I-502 until it made the ballot.
The amount of support NORML gave to I-502 before it made the ballot is roughly equal to the amount of support NORML gave to Sensible Washington. In fact, I did two interviews with proponents of each before either had made (or would have made) the ballot. I could even make the case we gave Sensible Washington MORE support than I-502, considering it was two NORML attorneys (you know, the ones you guys are always castigating for wanting to make money defending pot arrests) who were the men behind Sensible Washington.
Somehow, with virtually equal amounts of support from NORML, I-502 managed to rally millions in funding, thousands of signatures, and dozens of high-profile supporters, while Sensible Washington did not.
That’s the facts. One initiative pulled it off. The other did not. More people thought “1 oz, no home grow, per se DUID” was a better idea than “remove all criminal penalties and trust the legislature to regulate it”. Perhaps if Sensible Washington had proposed something a little more, um, what’s the word?… anyway, something that more funders and high-profile backers could support, it would be on the ballot instead of I-502 and we wouldn’t be having this discussion.
But no. They proposed “remove all criminal penalties and trust the legislature to regulate it”, even as polling showed it wouldn’t pass, even as major orgs were saying it was a bad idea, even as major funders were turning up their nose at it. So did they re-tool and adjust to find some compromise that would work politically? Nope, they stuck to their principles and therefore did not get on the ballot. And now those same principles are making them fight against the compromise that did work politically and did make the ballot and did actually provide a decent shot at ending the arrest of 16,000 pot smokers a year. Somehow, their principles have got them lining up on the same side of the drug war with the drug czar at the ballot box.
What always flummoxes me is the cognitive dissonance needed by our haters to hold these two thoughts simultaneously:
1) NORML shoulda done X,Y,Z, because with NORML’s support it woulda made it!
2) NORML hasn’t done anything for legalization in forty years.
Make up your mind! Either we’re a powerful org that can help pass legalization or we’re a fading dinosaur that doesn’t matter. If it’s the latter, why do you give two shits what we do or don’t endorse? If it’s the former, why do you criticize us for supporting the best shot at legalization in our lifetime? We are not NORPSDUIDL, we are NORML. Per se DUID sucks, no doubt about that, but would you rather be a criminal all the time or a legal cannabis consumer fighting to amend a bad DUID standard?
So it’s “Reprehensible Russ”, now? Nice. And conflating NORML with the KKK? Now you’re really mainstreaming your message. Certainly anyone on the fence about I-502 can see how reasonable you are. Please keep commenting – you win us I-502 converts with every post.
I would much prefer to vote on your version of legalization, Steve. Did you get it on the ballot? Ah, I see, somehow all those plants you grow and distribute so compassionately never raised enough cash to sponsor an initiative, huh?
Um, if you’re an 18-20-year-old college student, you can be busted for weed NOW. And when you turn 21, you can be busted for weed NOW. You act as if I-502 is instituting prohibition for 18-20-year-olds!
As for “infused products” vs. “concentrates” – worst case scenario is that concentrates fall under the “useable marijuana” definition (“the resins”) and you get a legal ounce of that. But Rick Simpson’s Oil is more than just concentrate, so it may indeed be an “infused product”. What I do know is when I-502 passes, both will be more legal than they are NOW.
As for “NORML attorney base needs more income” – you must have failed basic algebra. When marijuana is LEGAL, there are far fewer marijuana cases to defend and make money from as a marijuana lawyer. There were 16,000 marijuana arrests in Washington last year; there were 37,000 DUI arrests in 2007 and the majority of those are for alcohol, a smaller percentage for alcohol+cannabis, and a very small percentage are cannabis only (I’ll have exact figures soon). You would have to presume that ((16,000 * Cost of Marijuana Defense) + (X * Cost of DUI Defense)) < ((0 * Cost of Marijuana Defense) + ((X + Y) * Cost of DUI Defense)), where X = number of current DUIs and Y = increase you suppose would happen under I-502.
As for “shifting definitions” – you mean like the words “medical” and “compassionate” and “caregiver” and “collective”? NORML, for 41 years, has always fought for the end of the arrest of adults for smoking pot. That’s a pretty simple and consistent definition of legalization – don’t punish me for smoking pot. Guess what? I-502 would end the arrest of adults for smoking pot! What you’re complaining about is something incidental to smoking pot – driving after smoking pot (a.k.a. a “privilege”, not a right).
And even on that count, most pot smokers are still A-OK. Five out of six of them didn’t even smoke pot with the past thirty days. They’re fine to drive. Of the 1 in 6 who did smoke pot this month, the vast majority don’t “wake and bake” – even as daily tokers, most of them get up sober, go to work sober, come home sober, put the kids to bed sober, and then when the day’s over, they light up a joint. In other words, somewhere between 98.2% and 99.9% of Washington’s 630,000 tokers are only going to be above 5ng/mL more than four hours after toking and be unimpaired at 5ng/mL or above.
So “take one for the team”? Well, let’s look at it this way: While you and the patients have been enjoying a pound and a half, fifteen plants, and quasi legal stores to shop in for thirteen years, 180,000 people just like me have been arrested as drug criminals in Washington State. Over the years as we’ve cried about this, we’ve been told “the public supports medical, not legalization” and been told to just wait wait wait as we continued to tinker with “safe access” for the 10% who are sick. So who’s been “taking one for the team” for the past thirteen years?
As for “a real job” – heh heh, is this a pot gardener telling me about real work? Steve, while you were selling bags at prohibition-inflated prices, I was working for a major consulting firm out of Boston, flying all around the country, configuring and installing databases. From the towers of Wall Street to the sprawling campuses of the Silicon Valley, from major hospital chains in Iowa to defense contractors in Houston. While you were figuring out how best to leverage the new medical marijuana law to benefit your pot dealer lifestyle, I was being recruited by a major medical device manufacturer to become their new head of field testing, which would have involved things like making sure heart monitors on military field hospitals would function properly in the sands and heat of Iraq. While you were slinging weed to sick people, I was negotiating for a six-figure salary, a company car, a Gold AmEx expense account, and first class flights to every major city in America and a few in Europe.
And all that was scuttled by a drug test for pot. Because pot is illegal for me to smoke. Because I’m too healthy to keep out of a cage.
So now I work for NORML (12 hours a day six days a week, mind you), but let me assure you, my opinions are my own. I’d vote for I-502 even if I were still that jet-setting database wizard, because personally, I can never vote on a drug issue the same way the people who want to lock me in a cage for pot would vote.
I guess you can afford to wait until “a REAL legalization bill… comes along” because you’re not facing prosecution over marijuana. It’s so easy for a few patients to have this attitude. “Oh no, I might get in the car and might display impairment and might attract a cop’s attention and might get pulled over and might get blood tested and might be above 5ng/mL… so all you healthy tokers just need to wait a little longer.” Well, a few Cali patients said that in 2010, and it doesn’t look like healthy Cali tokers will get a shot at legalization in 2012. Colorado tried in 2006 and just this year have another shot, so that’s six years to wait. How many more years must we be terrorized, must we live in fear even as we smoke pot in our own homes, so that the people who smoke pot all day every day safely in their homes and are always above 5ng/mL can have peace of mind when they drive? Because I know YOU won’t be getting any legalization initiatives on the ballot any time soon.
It’s 64,000 marijuana arrests in Washington between now and the next presidential election year, when a legalization initiative has the best shot. I can’t wait that long.
Ryan, we don’t disagree AT ALL on the issue of “rescheduling”. The goal of “rescheduling” should be to REMOVE cannabis from ANY schedule. It doesn’t qualify as a scheduled drug and scheduling it as a Schedule II does us more damage that we’re already dealing with. We need to work together to UNSCHEDULE it….but we may need to go through the rescheduling proceedure to get there unless you have a better idea. I’m all ears on this one. It’s a priority.
And I’m totally frustrated with the people who will throw anyone under the bus for the constantly changing definition of “legalization”. First we were going to protect those young people just starting out their lives who would have their futures ruined by a “drug” arrest. Now, under the new NORML definition of legalization, they’ll just have to “suck it up and take one for the stoner team” if they’re under 21 or a patient.
That’s just totally unacceptable. Why does everyone need to get thrown under the bus just to comply with the new and everchanging definition of “legalization” that NORML and the ACLU come up with?
All of you the subscribe to Reprehensible Russ’s “new and improved” definition of “legalization, but decide which of your principles your willing to compromise. NORML is apparently willing to hire Russ to sell you the idea that giving up your priniciples is a courageous thing that needs to be done in the name of legalization….and the NORML attorney base that needs the extra income.
There may be a more disreputable organizations than NORML out there somewhere (MPP comes to mind). It might be the Republican National Committee, or the Democratic National Committee, or the Ku Klux Klan, but I’ve never seen any of those organizations shift their primary goals as quickly, or as often, as NORML has over the last ten years.
The word “HO” comes to mind. If you can’t grow the plant…it’s not legalization. If you’re an 18 year old college student that will have his life ruined over a simple pot bust….and NORML is willing to throw you under the bus because you’re an 18-20 college student….STOP SENDING THEM MONEY TO DEFEND YOUR RIGHTS!!! They are SELLING YOU OUT!!!
You’re in college now…it’s time you understood that you don’t send money to people who are willing to sell out your rights whenever it’s expedient for them…and having you PAY their salaries to do it! Reprehensible Russ is PAID to parrot the NORML line….and you’re paying his salary.
When NORML asks you for your money next time….”Just say NO!” I think it’s time that Russ got a real job.
Look….a REAL legalization bill, that doesn’t remove what little remains of your rights, will come along. It’s not my job to write that. My job is to protect patients. But I assure you that SOMEONE, and it won’t be anyone at NORML, will come up with good legislation that you can support, both with your vote and with your money.
I’m not suggesting you hold out for “perfect”, but I’m certainly saying that you should at least hold out for “acceptable”….or “reasonable”….or something that won’t endanger you even more than you currently are today.
Even Russ had his definition of “legalization”. It was no surprise that he gave up his own definitiion of “legalization” for a “paycheck”. Yes Russ….you are a sell-out to the cause.
Steve
P.S. Russ…”infused products” are far different than “concentrates” (like hash). The concentrates aren’t even mentioned in the initiative so you won’t be getting your “16 ounces of legal hash”. In fact, it doesn’t appear that you’ll be legal to buy any concentrates whatsoever according to the initiative. If you can find that I’m wrong, please post it.
Sorry, Russ. Blame Alison and McKay….not me.
Like I said, if the NORML organization had supported the Washington initiatives with as much vigor as Prop19 or I-502, I honestly think it would have been much different.
I think its great that over the 3 years of SW working on initiatives, there were 7 blog posts, and a couple of interviews, from the most trafficked legalization website in the world and such.
Last year I posted this about it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-0gumCNIFWU
I don’t have much more to say.
“I posted this correction to one of your earlier posts about I-502, but perhaps you didn’t see it. I want to make sure you and your readers understand that I-502 does not create a state monopoly on growing, processing, or selling marijuana. The state Liquor Control Board simply licenses and regulates privately-owned and -operated farms, shops, and stores, much as it licenses and regulates wineries and distilleries. The state is not involved in the actual growing, processing, or selling, and state employees will not own or operate any of those businesses (at least, not in their capacities as state employees).”
I just had a flash back of SB 5073!
Colorado rejected this 5ng limit and good for them!
And why would the ACLU use new penalties to convince voters to decrease penalties? Reckless driving laws ALREADY protect WA roads!
RCW 46.61.500
Reckless driving — Penalty.
(1) Any person who drives any vehicle in willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property is guilty of reckless driving. Violation of the provisions of this section is a gross misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for up to three hundred sixty-four days and by a fine of not more than five thousand dollars.
(2) The license or permit to drive or any nonresident privilege of any person convicted of reckless driving shall be suspended by the department for not less than thirty days.
(3)(a) Except as provided under (b) of this subsection, a person convicted of reckless driving who has one or more prior offenses as defined in RCW 46.61.5055(14) within seven years shall be required, under RCW 46.20.720, to install an ignition interlock device on all vehicles operated by the person if the conviction is the result of a charge that was originally filed as a violation of RCW 46.61.502, 46.61.504, or an equivalent local ordinance.
(b) A person convicted of reckless driving shall be required, under RCW 46.20.720, to install an ignition interlock device on all vehicles operated by the person if the conviction is the result of a charge that was originally filed as a violation of RCW 46.61.520 committed while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or any drug or RCW 46.61.522 committed while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or any drug.
[2011 c 293 § 4; 2011 c 96 § 34; 1990 c 291 § 1; 1979 ex.s. c 136 § 85; 1967 c 32 § 67; 1965 ex.s. c 155 § 59.]
So you’re criticizing our timing, is that it?
First of all, what do you call “support”? Lots of money? We don’t have that. Volunteers in our NORML chapters? Did that. NORML lawyers actually writing and running Sensible Washington all these years? Yup. Support by giving attention to Sensible Washington on our most-trafficked marijuana law reform site in the world? Well, let’s see:
1) http://stash.norml.org/new-wa-state-initiative-proposal-to-legalize-marijuana-in-2011 (“The organization Sensible Washington filed an initiative Wednesday that would remove all state criminal and civil penalties for the possession use and sale of marijuana in any quantity. “)
2) http://blog.norml.org/2010/06/23/washington-state-marijuana-legalization-effort-coming-down-to-the-wire/ (“…the organizers at Sensible Washington have partnered with a popular alternative weekly, The Stranger, to distribute 80,000 signature forms in this week’s run of papers. Please, if you live in Washington, get a copy of The Stranger ASAP or download the necessary signature forms here…”)
3) http://stash.norml.org/legalization-week-oregon-california-colorado-washington (“ACLU of Washington Drug Policy Project‘s Alison Holcomb and Sensible Washington‘s Douglas Hiatt on marijuana legalization in Washington State”)
4) http://blog.norml.org/2011/06/22/marijuana-legalization-initiative-launched-in-washington-state/ (“The 20th annual Seattle Hempfest will have two important reform projects for the hundreds of thousands to truly rally around this year: a state legalization initiative (the ACLU’s or Sensible Washington’s)”)
5) http://stash.norml.org/poll-shows-slim-majority-for-marijuana-legalization-in-washington-state (“Sensible Washington is running an amazing campaign with virtually no big dollar support. They need donations and volunteer signature gatherers to get the initiative on the ballot.”)
6) http://stash.norml.org/washington-house-lawmakers-refuse-to-act-on-bill-to-regulate-adult-marijuana-production-use-and-sales (“You can also get involved in the 2011 statewide initiative effort to legalize adult marijuana use by contacting our friends Sensible Washington here.”)
7) http://stash.norml.org/new-norml-chapters-in-washington-virginia-and-connecticut (“The new Washington NORML groups are working together with Sensible Washington to collect signatures for I-1068, the legalization initiative filed by NORML Legal Committee attorney Douglas Hiatt.”)
That’s just the blog posts I found in the first three search pages on NORML.org for “Sensible Washington”; I don’t have access to the CapWiz and NORML Alerts system to count those, but there were many. So aside from all that, what have the Romans… er, NORML… done for you lately?
We GAVE our support, in spades, in multiple years and multiple attempts of Sensible Washington. But it takes more than just the support of pot smokers to end prohibition. It takes the votes of seniors, vets, soccer moms, cops, teachers, doctors, and a whole lot more people to whom the idea of simply removing all criminal penalties for marijuana and leaving no regulatory structure in its wake sounds like an invitation to chaos. THAT’S why there was no big money or backers raised by Sensible Washington, because that strategy is a losing bet.
Yes, I know that’s how alcohol prohibition ended, but as we keep telling our opponents, marijuana ain’t alcohol. In 1933, plenty of people alive remembered pre-1920. An entire set of cultural and business norms around the distribution and consumption of alcohol already existed and it was easy for Washington to ease right back into that. With marijuana, we’re talking about doing something new and radical that nobody alive has any experience with, and doing it with something that’s been equated with addiction, crime, violence, liberalism, anti-Americanism, and the moral decay of the society. We know they have nothing to fear, that those are stereotypes and scaremongering, but they don’t. And they’re going to want to put their toe in the water of legalization before they wade right in.
Please, if on principle you cannot vote for something with a per se DUID, then don’t. But please don’t vote on it at all. Don’t vote against it, on the same side as the drug czar, to keep me a criminal.
I remember you interviewing Don Skakie for I-505, long after Sensible Washington had two initiatives come and then go. I remember you interviewing Doug Hiatt when he wasn’t even running an initiative, long after SW’s initiative failed to get enough signatures. But that was just a promotion of NAW’s I-505, because Alison Holcomb was on that interview too.
So maybe I am missing all of the support that NORML has given to Washington’s TRUE legalization initiatives that actually got hundreds of thousands of signatures without any major backers, and without a lot of NORML’s support.
I think that SW could have been more successful if NORML would have given I-1068 and I-1149 as much support as NAW has gotten, or as much support as Prop19 got. And in 2011 it was an off year, there were no major campaigns going on, and nothing national. So that was a perfect time to support Sensible Washington with vigor.
I know you are upset about patients against legalization and all of that.
Heck I’ve been saying the same things that Allen St. Pierre said in that private email, for a lot longer than he has, and I’ve said what I have said PUBLICLY.
This is one of my recent videos about that:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMbkQsC4Mk4
Im not one of those “We’ve got ours” people.
I just think I-502 over stepped some serious boundries.
Colorado recently rejected 5ng limits too. And for good reason. Even the main sponsor Claire Levy came out against such strict limits with HB 1261.
The ACLU could have reassured voters that the roads would be safe with this measure without including new DUID laws, and blood tests. Reckless Driving laws cover that issue quite well, and with stiff penalties.
We can agree to disagree. I am starting a monthly subscription to NORML, donating $4.20 per month. It’s not much. But I just wanted you to know I appreciate you, even if we disagree.
Wrong. NORML has protested this per se DUID provision since the beginning of time. We have always opposed per se DUID. We vehemently opposed it when it was offered as a stand-alone measure in Colorado and we’re still opposing it. We’ve never downplayed anything about per se DUID, we lobbied ACLU-WA to not include it, but we lost.
But this isn’t a stand-alone vote about instituting a per se DUID. This is a vote about LEGALIZING MARIJUANA and adding a per se DUID. So you have to ask, does per se DUID suck as bad as legalizing marijuana rules, to use valley girl slang.
For me it’s no contest. I can’t vote the same way the Drug Czar would vote on a legalization initiative, ever. Being left alone over cannabis is a right; driving is a privilege. And any flaw that exists in a legalization is easier solved by the petitions of groups of legal taxed citizens than groups of criminals.
Also – trust me on this one – regular tokers, especially in the Midwest and South, are beginning to sour on the medical marijuana patients. They dream of having something like I-502 to vote for, and in their perception, they saw No on Prop 19 and No on I-502 as a direct slap in their face. They know they have no shot of legalization until that wave from the West begins cresting. When we piss away legalization chances in the Pacific Time Zone, they get really upset.
Another group beginning to sour? Young people. I was just at the Oregon SSDP Legalization Conference and you could sense the frustration these eager reformers have at the ensconced leadership, all of whom are so bound up in medical marijuana (one runs the nation’s largest pot-doc clinic chain, the other runs the patients-only cannabis cafe). One exasperated college kid was stunned that after all these years and initiatives and groups bickering over which “true legalization” they’d run, the elder leaders were still suggesting that everybody sign all three initiatives and run them all. “That’s just stupid,” he said, “I’m into the movement and even I don’t remember which of the three I’ve signed! And if you sign the same one twice, you invalidate the whole ten sigs on the sheet.”
So, remember this No on I-502 the next time there comes some vote to fix this or fix that about medical marijuana. You may not have near 100% recreational toker support next time.
Well, I responded to that question earlier, but I will again:
You REALLY think a taxed and regulated market will be much more prohibitively expensive than the black market?
Let’s take your worst case scenario. I-502 passes and legal weed costs $600 an ounce. And then everyone rushes to grow their own as patients. All right, that would mean that very few people would shop in the state stores. Who wants to pay $600 an ounce?
So then black marketeers, as you suggest, will fill the void, supplying weed at <$600. If they price it at say, $550 an ounce, they beat the state. But do they beat their fellow dealers? Up until I-502 passed, the dealers I know were getting $250-$300 ounce on the street. So, do all the dealers collude and sell at $550, or do they start undercutting each other.
Also, Washington’s no vacuum. There’s buds from BC and organic from Oregon and plenty of dealers who’d see an opportunity where weed costs $550 to undercut that.
So while this is happening, the state stores are struggling. No one will buy their overtaxed weed. The big bad gub’mint, addicted to tax revenue, begins to realize they have overpriced the market. They either lower their prices or, as you rightly predict, a black market spins out of control.
In other words, every political and economic pressure will be on Washington State to maintain a price relatively close to the current black market margins. Now, they may have published all sorts of predictions and numbers and taxes, but the simple fact is without a prohibition tariff, weed prices have nowhere to go but down.
As for the patients on fixed incomes.. I don’t worry about them because we have compassionate people like you who have the ability to grow 15 plants and get at least a pound off them apiece. Surely you’ll be organizing ways to get this excess bounty to the sickest and most vulnerable patients, because nobody with compassion would charge them $10-$15/gram for their medicine… like is happening right now in the quasi-legal Washington dispensaries.
So let’s see if I’ve got the arguments down. I have to remain a criminal because:
a) somebody who’s been safe from arrest for thirteen years and smokes pot all day every day might get in a car and demonstrate impairment and get their blood drawn and get a DUI;
b) the prices on weed will be way higher as a legal product than as a prohibited one, despite that not being true for every other product that was ever prohibited;
c) asshole cops will abuse the new per se DUID provision, leading to a massive spike in DUID arrests, despite that not being true for any other state that’s imposed a per se DUID.
No. If you are under 21, and you smoke pot illegally (since the age is 21), and you get behind the wheel of a car, and you exhibit impairment and get pulled over, and you fail a field sobriety test, and you get hauled into a hospital, and an hour later when the blood is drawn you have any of it in your system THEN you go to jail. If you are over 21, same scenario, and you’d have to be above 5ng.
But right now, if you have a gram in your pocket, at any age, you go to jail for a mandatory 24 hours.
Once again – possession of an ounce of cannabis is legal. It does not say “possession of an ounce of cannabis obtained from an authorized dealer is legal.”
Jesus, only a paranoid stoner could actually think voting to legalize an ounce is something that the cops will use AGAINST us… Look, if we based all our votes on what’s the worst case scenario an asshole cop or DA could make out of a loophole or technicality, we’d have never passed medical marijuana here in Oregon. “What’s this, patients only get three ounces? Why, cops will use that to shake down those with two ounces to find out if they have four ounces! All the patients with four ounces will be screwed!” “What, a mature plant is over 12 inches? That’ll screw all the patients who leave their 11 inch seedlings unattended over the weekend!” “What, a patient registry? Why, cops will use it for fishing expeditions!” All of those bad things, by the way, happened, but I can’t find a single patient who wished we’d never passed medical marijuana.
For you YellowJuana
http://xcannabis.com/2012/02/initiative-502-in-washington-is-getting-personal-pseudo-legalization-or-pseudo-prohibition/
Steve typically I disagree with you. I disagree with the RE-scheduling of cannabis in Washington and in the USA. I think instead we need to only UN-schedule.
However you have made some very rational points here. The way they downplay the DUID provisions is disgusting. The reason that Colorado shot down HB 1261 is because of the DUID provisions that were almost exactly the same as in I-502.
http://blogs.westword.com/latestword/2011/03/marijuana_thc_driving_impairment_limits_claire_levy.php
Even Claire Levy (the original sponsor of this) came out against it in the long run.
NORML and the ACLU have been working on a few bad laws in Washington, and they don’t seem to question or protest any of the negative provisions, regardless of how negative they are.
At least Colorado has it’s senses about it all.
Now, now. Shall I go back through my archives to find the multiple different times I’ve had Sensible Washington backers on my show and promoted them through my blog? Hell, I just spoke to two (Don Skakie and another fellow) in person at the Oregon SSDP Legalization Conference and told them their views will never be censored on this page or on the live call-in hour.
Again, you mention “full legalization”. Please define that and explain to me how we get 50%+1 voters to go from “full prohibition” to “full legalization” in one vote. Because if enough people in the positions of influence to actually pull off getting an initiative to the ballot agreed, Sensible Washington would have made the ballot in one of the many times they’ve tried.
National NORML’s position has always been thus: get your legalization to the ballot, we’ll support it. But getting it on the ballot is the job of grassroots people, including local NORML chapters. We’re not going to throw the NORML name at every proposed initiative because 1) most don’t make it to the ballot and we have limited resources, and 2) sometimes you end up with multiple initiatives in one state and then we’d be diluting the resources.
Now, I’d have had some local Washington State NORML chapters to help in that effort, circa 2008-2010, but all the activists up there seem to think NORML has two M’s (Medical Marijuana) and focused only on patients-this and patients-that while 16,000 non-patients continued to get arrested year after year. Worse, some spread the false rumor that NORML is anti-patients and hamstring my efforts to get you some of that grassroots support you needed for a “full legalization” campaign effort.
Patients pushed us “legalizers” away more than once, lest we sully their morally superior argument for not being imprisoned for cannabis. The entire marijuana movement began as one that sought liberty for all who toke, but in the Nineties, people of influence decided a politically pragmatic thing to do was to separate out the patients and secure their protections, imperfect and limited as they may be, so at least we moved a baby step closer to legalization. It was never NORML that separated us into “patients, not criminals” – that was the medical marijuana movement.
Was there a “Tokers Against Medical Marijuana”? Do you recall a “Pot Smokers Against Prop 215″? Hell, no! Recreational consumers by what would have to be a damn near unanimous vote voted for the medical marijuana initiatives, even though there was nothing in it for them except the hope it would get us closer to the day WE TOO weren’t criminals. And for thirteen (fifteen in Cali) years, we’ve hidden in the garage with our grams and watched as people who are mostly safe with ounces, plural, of weed and dozens of plants and wonderful boutiques in which to sample the finest cannabis varieties keep proposing medical this and medical that and in the worst case, actually organizing to defeat Prop 19 and keep all of us criminals.
Do you know how it felt, watching dispensaries spend pot smokers’ money to keep pot smokers criminals, knowing damn well that (especially in California) many of the patients worst ailment is the depression $150 bucks makes in their wallet and the anxiety of getting caught with pot by a cop? To see moneyed businesses that exist in such size and number only because prohibition exists fighting to maintain prohibition was the last straw for me and the medical marijuana movement.
Don’t get me wrong. Marijuana is absolutely medical. But as a movement, I believe we’ve reached the point where it may be detrimental to overall legalization. I offer Patients Against I-502 as Exhibit B…
Thanks dnL. You are very correct. I don’t make money off medical marijuana being protected as an exclusive class of people. In fact, I make media for a few marijuana related companies. I make t-shirts and websites. And if there were more marijuana businesses, I would be more blessed not less blessed.
But I started my business Emerald Sun a few years ago to support marijuana businesses and legalization. I closed that business down when I had more kids and when I got too busy in my career. In fact, that website doesn’t even exist any more. But since I first started supporting NORML I have had two more kids, and I started working about 350 hours per month. So I rarely have time for this any more.
But I-502 is very close to my life in many ways. I just have not been able to support this law. I supported Prop 19, I-1068, I-1149, I-505 and I am supporting Regulate Marijuana Like Wine and CCHI, as well as Washington State Safe Cannabis Act 2012 .
I can’t support I-502 because it does more harm than good in my opinion. I’ve done a lot of research on it and it is something that (as Pete Holmes said about SW) “Worries me terribly”.
All that the ACLU you had to do to get my support and other people’s support is leave the dangerous DUID provisions out. If they thought that they needed to convince people that they would be safe on the roads is tell them about Reckless Driving laws in Washington.
RCW 46.61.500
Reckless driving — Penalty.
(1) Any person who drives any vehicle in willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property is guilty of reckless driving. Violation of the provisions of this section is a gross misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for up to three hundred sixty-four days and by a fine of not more than five thousand dollars.
(2) The license or permit to drive or any nonresident privilege of any person convicted of reckless driving shall be suspended by the department for not less than thirty days.
(3)(a) Except as provided under (b) of this subsection, a person convicted of reckless driving who has one or more prior offenses as defined in RCW 46.61.5055(14) within seven years shall be required, under RCW 46.20.720, to install an ignition interlock device on all vehicles operated by the person if the conviction is the result of a charge that was originally filed as a violation of RCW 46.61.502, 46.61.504, or an equivalent local ordinance.
(b) A person convicted of reckless driving shall be required, under RCW 46.20.720, to install an ignition interlock device on all vehicles operated by the person if the conviction is the result of a charge that was originally filed as a violation of RCW 46.61.520 committed while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or any drug or RCW 46.61.522 committed while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or any drug.
[2011 c 293 § 4; 2011 c 96 § 34; 1990 c 291 § 1; 1979 ex.s. c 136 § 85; 1967 c 32 § 67; 1965 ex.s. c 155 § 59.]
Geeze, they are all lawyers by the way. Surely they knew about these laws?
“Whatever, Ryan, the whole point of my comment was to enlighten you that Russ didn’t know who he was talking to. As much as you think you are being transparent, it’s clear from listening to the conversation that Russ didn’t know it was YOU DURING the conversation. So WHATEVER. ”
I wasn’t there to talk about me. I answered every question that they asked me. I didn’t conceal any thing. If I wanted to talk about my site xCannabis.com, that would have been OFF TOPIC.
But geeze I had just made several videos for Russ and posted them in this thread before calling into the show. I didn’t alter my voice. And right now especially my voice is pretty unique with me having a cold and all. Its unique otherwise too.
“It’s a little selfish of you to assume that Russ would recognize your voice when you said your name, or put it together with one of the many profiles or names you use. Get over it, you weren’t clear enough or Russ would have explained who you were to the listeners. We all know you, Ryan. ”
Other profiles. You have yellowjuana cake, and darla ruff. You have more than I have. In fact I have changed my name on FaceBook ONCE to “Friar Ryan”, and I would have changed it to “Reverend Ryan” but Facebook wouldn’t let me.
I realize people are slinging “sock puppetry” like Russ and Steve Sarich spoke about. But I am always real, and honest. I’ve never played that sock puppet roll.
“I have a vivid and horrific memory of pretty much every conversation I’ve ever had with you. It’s because you can’t agree to disagree. No matter what, if I disagree with you, even on the tiniest of points, you will use that point to try and poke me into submission. It’s what you do. ”
Yes you always like to censor comments and then play victim. Which is why I use my screen capture software to record our conversations. Just before you started censoring me about I-502, I have an email from you thanking me for sticking up for you when you were arguing with someone else.
“Now, as for your whining about being hung up on . . . try to stay on topic next time and don’t yell. Good luck.”
Good luck staying on topic, when you have tried to make this conversation about me. It’s not about me. Its about I-502.
I made a recent post about it here:
http://xcannabis.com/2012/02/back-when-norml-fought-for-real-liberty/
“So I see there’s another legalization bill. I’m reading the seemingly nit-picky criticisms of it from some of the MMJ crowd. I’m following Russ’ snarky (yet entertaining) rebuttals. Deja Vu. Where in the hell have I seen this before?”
Definitiion of “stupid stoner”: Anyone who threatens the medical marijuana community for not supporting a bill that claims “legalization” and then readily admits he hasn’t even read the bill.
There are those who simply respond to the word “legalization” like one of Pavlov’s dogs…nothing more than a conditioned response. “It’s says legalization….it MUST be good….who needs to bother reading it?”.
Supporters of the initiative downplay the DUID provisions in this bill. They contend that maybe this shiny new tool for law enforcement will not be aggressively used by the police. Now it’s possible that the police wouldn’t use a powerful new tool against cannabis users, but that has certainly not been my experience over the last 10 years. And this isn’t just a patient issue. This will negatively impact anyone who smokes. The only difference with patients is that they will always be guilty when tested. But we will never agree on this issue.
Since it’s not likely that many have actually read the initiative, maybe we should disect the bill a bit and look at what the authors have to say about it. NAW has produced a very interesting fact sheet on their website (better get a copy before they delete it). This fact sheet provides the numbers they project for the state taxation scheme, including the expected price from the grower, taxes and end user pricing. In later posts I’ll prove that they have left out significant numbers that will raise the end user price significantly, but for now, let’s just work with their current figures….they’re illuminating enough for now.
You always have to start somewhere when projecting numbers. Your original cost of goods is always a good place to start. NAW is basing their figures on the assumption that the initial price that growers will be willing to accept is going to be $68 an ounce (or $1100 per pound). Maybe “accept” is not the correct word. Perhaps “will be forced to accept to get a license to be ‘legal’ to sell to state licensed stores” would be more accurate.
Based on that initial purchase price, they are predicting an end user price of $444 an ounce (or $7100 per pound). This would provide the state with a tax/profit margin of $6000 per pound! I bet the grower will be happy to know that the product he’s only getting $68 for will be netting the state a clear $6000 profit margin! I guess we all have to do our part under this “tax and regulate” model, right?
WOW, I just went back to the NAW website this morning and they’ve changed their figures again. Now they on plan on “only” making $4800 per pound (in taxes alone). Gee, maybe they aren’t as malevolent and greedy as I thought.
(I’m sure that grower won’t feel so totally ripped off now)
You would think that this was a rather large miscalculation, right? To reach their stated projection of $210 million in taxes at the $7100 per pound figure, they would only have to sell 29,000 pounds per year. At $5900 per pound they’ll have to up their game a bit and sell 43,750 pounds to reach the tax revenues they predicted.
We’ll don’t cry for the state just yet; the NAW’s numbers are still WAY off. First, they forgot one of the major players in their supply chain, and it’s an important one. They forgot the distributor and the additional 25% tax at that step of the distribution chain. Since the distributor is written into the law, and we can assume that someone will have to handle the 43,750 pound of pot that will need to be distributed, I don’t think you can leave out the distributor in this model. (However, if you ARE a distributor, and you’re distributing thousands of pounds of Federally illegal pot, I’m thinking that the Feds are stopping at your door before they even before they stop for donuts.)
So there’s another 25% tax to be added to their current figures (which will also raise the retail price). I’m sure that the NAW will be updating their figures again, so stay tuned for more changes.
There is one more HUGE calculation that they forgot in their published numbers, and it will radically change the end user price, but I’ll get to that one later. Hopefully these numbers alone will stir some conversation.
Do anyone know a grower in their right mind that will be willing to challenge the Feds for the “privilege” of selling top quality cannabis for $1100 per pound? If you know one, please have them contact me!
Is there any question about whether or not you can add a $4800 per pound state tax on marijuana and NOT have end user prices go up dramatically? (I hope that clears up Russ’s question on why I thought prices would be higher under this “legalization” regime….I can read…try it some time!)
Again, Russ, what’s your threshold for pain? At what point do you just go back to your current supplier? Will you pay $400 an ounce? Is $500 too much? Is $600 out of the question? When does this no longer make any sense, even to the most die hard “legalization at any cost” advocates? So far Russ has avoided this question, but I think it’s time for an answer.
Contrary to some, the DUID issue is not the only issue for me. Under I-502, medical patients (and I know that some of you have said you could care less about us and even wished that we got raided) would be forced to buy their cannabis from the state licensed stores. This would mean that the cost for patients, many of whom live only on their Social Security, would at least double. That’s unacceptable to me. If recreational users are dumb enough to pay $500-$600 per ounce just so they can say that they have state “legal” pot, please, go right ahead.
So Russ, if “legal” pot prices are significantly higher than street prices, doesn’t that defeat the announced goal of NAW to wipe out the black market in marijuana? I wasn’t an economics major, but I know that raising prices is only going to fuel the black market, not eliminate it. You’ll also see everyone rushing to become patients so that they can grow their own rather than paying the exhorbitant state prices. (So much for NORML’s BS argument that the clinics will oppose the initiative because it will hurt their businesses…yeah right!)
You’ll just have to face it….many of us oppose I-502 for some very practical reasons that have nothing to do with greed or other business interests. We oppose it because we’ve actually read it. You might want to try reading it too before you make up your mind. The actual cost of “legalization at any price” may very well prove to be to high for even Russ to bear.
Steve Sarich
CannaCare
OK, I feel like we are living back in 2010, prop 19, and here we are in the same mess. Russ I have been keeping out of this fight but after the call in friday and the debate that I see unfolding now I have to put my two cents in. I m calling in on the show Monday, no one is stopping me, some people need to hear from a true cannabis fugitive, discriminated against and criminal consumer! So Hour two money everyone be ready to beat me up because some are not going to like what I have to say!
Whatever, Ryan, the whole point of my comment was to enlighten you that Russ didn’t know who he was talking to. As much as you think you are being transparent, it’s clear from listening to the conversation that Russ didn’t know it was YOU DURING the conversation. So WHATEVER.
It’s a little selfish of you to assume that Russ would recognize your voice when you said your name, or put it together with one of the many profiles or names you use. Get over it, you weren’t clear enough or Russ would have explained who you were to the listeners. We all know you, Ryan.
I have a vivid and horrific memory of pretty much every conversation I’ve ever had with you. It’s because you can’t agree to disagree. No matter what, if I disagree with you, even on the tiniest of points, you will use that point to try and poke me into submission. It’s what you do.
Now, as for your whining about being hung up on . . . try to stay on topic next time and don’t yell. Good luck.
And to those who are affiliated w/ medical marijuana who have legitimate concerns w/ this initiative and legalization measures in the future: Tread very carefully in how you oppose this initiative. I once promised here on the Stash that I wouldn’t repeat this… but the dirty tactics used to derail Prop 19 by the “Tossed SALADs” and the “I’ve Got Mines” caused me to lose all support for the MMJ movement in California. And I’m sure I’m not alone. I realize that not everyone who’s affiliated w/ MMJ was against Prop 19, but it was the loud mouths that were (e.g. the Dennis Perons, the Dragonfly de la Luzes, the MMJ profiteers, et. al) who soured me on it. I’ll even admit that I still enjoy a certain degree of schadenfreude when I hear of CA cannabis clubs and MMJ growers getting their sh*t ruined by the feds, or cities looking to restrict MMJ rules. It’s not mature, nor is it fair, but neither were they when we needed them to be. So again, be careful in how you oppose legalization.
Still writing more than I want to about this. OK, I’m done w/ this.
xcannabis, I’ll admit that I already have a pretty clear idea of where you stand on the issue of legalization. Throughout these years, I’ve read many of your posts and I’ve seen a number of your videos. I believe that you are not against this measure purely for financial gain. Unfortunately, that is something I cannot say about others who say that they want “legalization” but seem to oppose these kinds of legislation when they arrive.
I’ll also admit that I do not feel like getting into a debate about the merits of I-502 because:
A) I’m not too familiar with I-502. I haven’t actually read the bill (my extensive research goes as far as Google searches on the issue at hand and reading news articles). Plus, IANAL, so I’m not going to pretend to know how this will affect Washington if it passes. Even if I were, I still wouldn’t attempt it; and
B) I’m not emotionally invested on this issue. I can’t vote on this. I am not from the great state of Washington, I’m a Californian. If it passes, cool. If it doesn’t, well, better luck next time. And, let’s face it, the Prop 19 fiasco had taken a lot of the fight right out of me.
What I will say is this: When it comes to politics, whether you are a voter or a politician, it’s very rare that you will get everything that you want in a bill. It doesn’t matter if the issue is cannabis legalization, tax reform, or a slam dunk issue like raising a damn debt ceiling. I would love for states to get full-blown legalization without the added BS also, but it’s starting to look like a pipe dream the older (and hopefully wiser) I get. Change comes slowly, so I won’t nitpick the baby steps of reformation. Though, I’m beginning to agree w/ something Russ had predicted a while back. When we keep passing on these legalization bills, more restrictive bills will be introduced in order to make them more palatable. I respect your views and I’m not going to tell you how to think/act on I-502 but like I said before (with apologies to Voltaire), don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Personally, I’d rather a state pass some quasi-legalization measure, which could force the nation and the federal government into finally having a serious discussion about the inefficiency of prohibition (a la Arizona SB 1070), which could lead to more reform, than to wait around for the illusive “perfect” (which would more than likely be an unfunded/unsupported/unelectable) initiative.
Speaking of Russ and NORML, I can’t say where their thought processes lie in supporting some measures while ignoring others, but I would think/hope that they are looking to back the most electable ones. Even if it seems like two steps forward and one step back, the overall result is that it’s still a forward motion. I can’t see the regression in that, especially if it’s a long term strategy.
Damn, I wrote more than I wanted to.
Here is my response today, since I got hung up on:
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xp1kor_back-when-norml-fought-for-real-liberty-interview-with-ron-paul_lifestyle
“Right. You’re Ryan, calling from California. That’s fine. Honest. Truthful. But deceitful from the conversation I heard – Russ didn’t know it was xcannabis, aka Reverend Ryan aka Friar Ryan. I feel like you could have let him know it was you, since you’d been having a debate here in the comments. Since you didn’t mention your chat handle, Russ didn’t know it was YOU.
That’s all I’m saying. Thanks for calling in.”
Yup, within the last year I lived in Washington. My kids were raised in Washington, and for 13 years (including this year) I have paid taxes in Washington.
And yes, it was me, my voice, my real name, and my same points of conversation. I was not in any way being deceptive. If Russ didn’t recognize my voice, he wasn’t paying attention. Obvious YOU knew. Duh!
Right. You’re Ryan, calling from California. That’s fine. Honest. Truthful. But deceitful from the conversation I heard – Russ didn’t know it was xcannabis, aka Reverend Ryan aka Friar Ryan. I feel like you could have let him know it was you, since you’d been having a debate here in the comments. Since you didn’t mention your chat handle, Russ didn’t know it was YOU.
That’s all I’m saying. Thanks for calling in.
I did properly identify myself. I have videoed myself. I have posted on my own site and on here. And I also called in and gave my real name and location.
I think if you have this much to say in the comments and then actually take the time to call the live show, you could at least properly identify yourself to the host so he would have known who he had on the line.
Russ, this was your caller.
“Do I go to jail if I possess after I-502? NO”
Unless you have any of it in your blood, and you are under 21. Or if you have over 5ng in your blood and you are over 21. Hmmm..
What about Section 20, paragraph 1 that says cannabis must be obtained by an authorized dealer?
Lots of ambiguous loopholes for cops to use against us, and not only use against us, but even more so.
“But to some of us, this is looking like another example of letting the perfect be the enemy of the good… and for some of you, it looks like fear of losing your meal ticket (no disrespect).”
I have support Prop19, I-1068, I-1149, and many other full legalization efforts. But I will not support I-502, because of how regressive it is.
If you look at my YouTube channel, I have been cursing how MMJ sets us back for longer that Allen St. Pierre has.
I am not looking to protect a certain class of cannabis consumers. I am looking forward to hemp production, recreational/consumer cannabis, no DUID bullcrap, etc.
I-502 does not help any of this. It is what I call “The Lawyer Retirement Program”.
The lack of support that NORML gave to the cause that they said that they support primarily, FULL legalization shows me that they are talking out of both sides of their mouth. Did NORML lend much support to the Sensible Washington initiatives that got hundreds of thousands of signatures (with no big backers, no Regressive Insurance, no million dollar philanthropists with vested interests) with just people who are passionate about freedom.
Sensible Washington got a few mentions by NORML, but I was sorely disappointed about how both NORML and especially how the ACLU neglected SW’s cause.
Peter Holmes (another NAW endorser) came out right and said “the people’s initiatives scare him terrible, referring to SW).
These lawyer pandering suckups and pseudo prohibitionists are not helping.
See Alison’s comment below. The section clearly legalizes “16 ounces of marijuana infused products”. Here’s the definition of a “marijuana infused product”:
However, I’m not so sure that hash and hash oil don’t fit the “usable marijuana” definition, which is limited to an ounce.
So, gosh, we might only be legalizing an ounce of hash oil. I’ll get clarification.
Welcome to my world.
Remember when medical marijuana passed and prohibitionists said “it’s the stalking horse for legalization!”
Who’d have thunk then that medical marijuana supporters would be exhorting people to vote AGAINST legalization?
Well, I did. I have long predicted that separating pot smokers into “patients” and “criminals” would eventually lead to them against us as they fight to maintain their personal perks and privileges.
Funny, though, the medical marijuana folks were awfully pragmatic politically when it came to protecting themselves from arrest. Was it “true legalization”? Nope. Did it cover everyone who has a medical need? Nope. Was it clear in legalizing amounts that would protect the most vulnerable? Nope. Time machine me back to 1998 and I can make a very compelling nit-picky case against voting for medical marijuana using the same standards these people are using to complain I-502 isn’t “true legalization”.
Well, the sad lesson they are about to learn is that there are about 8-9 “criminals” for every 1 “patient”. There are also about 20 pro-legalization voters for every 1 patient. And that every tinfoil hat conspiracy, nit-picky allegation, elaborate “what-if” scenario they use to demonize I-502 comes off to the voting public as (a) people who smoke pot all damn day are worried they’ll get DUIs, (b) people who make money on medical marijuana are threatened, or (c) damn, if those stoners are so against it, it must be all right!
No on I-502 don’t understand that “patients”, “ng/mL”, and all that is “inside baseball” to the public. They know there’s a medical law and that’s supposed to be for really sick and disabled people and they get a lot of weed and have some pseudo-legal stores I drive by every now and then. They don’t really conceive of the idea that there are people sitting on a pound and a half of weed who smoke it all damn day and then get behind the wheel. Now, you and I know they aren’t likely impaired, but to the general public, that sounds like a guy pounding a fifth of Jack and hopping behind the wheel. Patients are lucky they’ve made it this long without some prohibitionist bringing it up.
So here we are, about to ask them to let everybody smoke weed, and they are naturally concerned about driving safety. Whether their fear is valid is irrelevant; the fear exists and it drives votes. I-502′s supporters felt that a tough anti-pot-driving standard would allay those fears and win votes (and it will). I and NORML disagreed strongly and told them so and we even offered alternatives that might allay fears (mine: a “no open containers”-type of pot law – no open baggies, rolled joints, loaded bowls, etc within driver’s reach, just like an open container.) But you can’t always get what you want in politics.
The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. For thirteen years, healthy pot smokers have been arrested while patients enjoy protection. We sacrificed the needs of the many in 1998 to protect the most vulnerable few. Time for some payback. And when weed is legal and UW and WSU are getting weed tax money to study weed and driving, we’ll have institutes of the state proving how bullshit a per se DUID cannabis standard is.
And now that I think of it, couldn’t No on I-502 people be putting all this time and money and energy into a ballot initiative to exempt patients from a per se DUID? Maybe, based on their past history of fund-raising, signature-gathering, and alliance-making, they realized they couldn’t pull that off, either.
Do I go to jail if I possess now? YES
Do I go to jail if I possess after I-502? NO
What part of “legalization” are you unclear on? I-502 legalizes possession of marijuana. Period.
Do I go to jail if I cultivate now? YES
Do I go to jail if I cultivate after I-502? NOT IF I BECOME A STATE-LICENSED GROWER FOR CANNABIS STORES
So I-502 maintains the status quo on personal cultivation. It does not legalize the personal cultivation of marijuana, but it does legalize the commercial cultivation of marijuana.
Do I go to jail if I buy/sell marijuana now? YES
Do I go to jail if I buy/sell marijuana after I-502? NO FOR BUYING, NO FOR SELLING AT THE COMMERCIAL LEVEL
So I-502 legalizes the commercial buying and selling of marijuana.
Do I go to jail for marijuana DUID if my blood test is above 5ng/mL? LIKELY WITH OR WITHOUT A $10,000 LAWYER
Do I go to jail for marijuana DUID if my blood test is above 5ng/mL? YES
So I-502 makes the act of driving by marijuana smokers more risky.
The only “hazy image of legalization” is the one floated by the pie-in-the-sky dreamers that think they can, year after year, float an initiative that will completely remove all criminal penalties for weed and replace it with… nothing! No regulations, no taxes, no rules, no limits, no licensing – leaving it all up to the legislature that will do… something. How much “hazier” could a legalization image be?
Well, it’s so “hazy” that they, after years and years of trying, have raised no significant funding, no significant backers, and never gotten enough signatures to place “true legalization” on the ballot. And even if they did, they’d lose with 36% yes support at the polls. And they are the ones behind the “No on I-502″ effort, driven partially by personal animosity toward the manager of the campaign that did get funding, backers, and on the ballot, because she publicly rejected their “Pie In The Sky 2011″ initiative effort.
Ok, if you say so.
But to some of us, this is looking like another example of letting the perfect be the enemy of the good… and for some of you, it looks like fear of losing your meal ticket (no disrespect).
I’m voting YES on I-502.
Prop19 was much easier to support, and I did. Prop19 gave a clearcut legal method to obtain cannabis. It did not introduce regressive DUID laws, and it gave a provision for personal grows. Prop19, while not perfect, actually made sense, and did represent a hazy image of legalization. I-502 does not come close!
So I see there’s another legalization bill. I’m reading the seemingly nit-picky criticisms of it from some of the MMJ crowd. I’m following Russ’ snarky (yet entertaining) rebuttals. Deja Vu. Where in the hell have I seen this before?
Oh yeah. It’s like Prop 19 all over again but a different state. This will not end well.
[Keep checking the calendar and, nope, it's not Groundhogs Day]
Wow. History really does repeat itself.
Russ I actually do agree with your overall comment here, but are you positive that we would be able to have a pound of hash? I thought that 16 oz. of “infused product” meant brownies,cookies, or some other medible. It would seem redundant and contradictory to only be able to posess an ounce of bud, but a pound of hash? Please verify this for me, thanks again.
Dan
I hope this does pass now, and that these Universities do debunk the propaganda, for I feel it is so,so very wrong. I hope we can smoke one and discuss this further in person at this coming Hempfest.
Thanks
Russ you have really put it into a good perspective for me. I still don’t know how I will vote, but thank you for taking the time to tell me the facts. I do still feel though that the age limit needs changed to 18, since there are many of patients under 21. But thanks for the info
“Recreational” Russ. I like it. It eloquently captures the disdain and disregard you hold for healthy tokers. It’s that “Patient Entitlement Syndrome” that thinks “I NEED cannabis, you WANT cannabis, so you should just take your chances or do without.”
“your suggestion that we make yet another sacrifice for the recreational movement by allowing ourselves to be recriminalized”
Let’s take a look at the before and after chart, so we can understand this “recriminalization” you speak of with I-502:
BEFORE I-502, IF I’M A PATIENT:
* If I need just an ounce, I need to pay a $200 permission slip, then
* I can go shop in quasi-legal dispensaries offering huge selection
* I can possess a pound and a half of weed and not go to prison
* I can grow fifteen mature marijuana plants and not go to prison
* I can have amounts greater than 15 plants and 24 ounces and have an affirmative defense for it
* I and my patient friends can collectively cultivate forty-five marijuana plants and not go to prison
* I can freely share this weed with my collective patient friends and not go to prison
* I can possess only as much hash, hash oil, tincture, salve, or edibles as 24 ounces of cannabis would produce
* If I get behind the wheel and I’m over 5ng/mL…
…and I demonstrate impairment
……and a cop pulls me over and gives me a field sobriety test
………and I fail that test and he suspects my impairment isn’t alcohol based
…………and in the hour it takes to get to the hospital and do a blood draw I’m still above 5ng/mL
……………then I’ll be charged with a DUI and that blood evidence will be used against me
………………and the attorney I paid $xx,xxx to will have a 10% chance of getting that DUID reduced, and, if not
…………………I GO TO PRISON
AFTER I-502 IF I’M A PATIENT:
* If I need just an ounce, I DON’T need to pay a $200 permission slip, BUT IF I DO then
* I can go shop in quasi-legal dispensaries offering huge selection OR STATE LICENSED SHOPS
* I can possess a pound and a half of weed and not go to prison
* I can grow fifteen mature marijuana plants and not go to prison
* I can have amounts greater than 15 plants and 24 ounces and have an affirmative defense for it
* I and my patient friends can collectively cultivate forty-five marijuana plants and not go to prison
* I can freely share this weed with my collective patient friends and not go to prison
* I can possess 16 OZ OF HASH, HASH OIL, SALVE, EDIBLES and 72 OZ OF TINCTURES and not go to prison
* If I get behind the wheel and I’m over 5ng/mL…
…and I demonstrate impairment
……and a cop pulls me over and gives me a field sobriety test
………and I fail that test and he suspects my impairment isn’t alcohol based
…………and in the hour it takes to get to the hospital and do a blood draw I’m still above 5ng/mL
……………then I’ll be charged with a DUI and that blood evidence will convict me and
………………I GO TO PRISON
OK, so we’re asking patients to sacrifice a 10% chance of getting out of a DUI that the vast majority will never face, in exchange for some of them not needing $200 permission slips, providing more shopping outlets for all of them, and defining hash and hash oil amounts much greater than they exist now.
Now, on the flip side, how does I-502 affect the 90% of us tokers too healthy for a recommendation?
BEFORE I-502 IF I’M A HEALTHY TOKER:
* If I need just an ounce, I GO TO JAIL
* I have to buy bags from dealers with limited selection and if caught I GO TO PRISON
* If I possess 40 grams or less I GO TO JAIL, if >40 grams, I GO TO PRISON
* If I grow even one marijuana plant I GO TO PRISON
* If I and my healthy friends collectively cultivate WE GO TO PRISON
* If I freely share this weed with my collective healthy friends WE GOT TO PRISON
* If I possess any hash, hash oil, tincture, salve, or edibles I GO TO PRISON
* If I get behind the wheel and I’m over 5ng/mL…
…and I demonstrate impairment
……and a cop pulls me over and gives me a field sobriety test
………and I fail that test and he suspects my impairment isn’t alcohol based
…………and in the hour it takes to get to the hospital and do a blood draw I’m still above 5ng/mL
……………then I’ll be charged with a DUI and that blood evidence will be used against me
………………and the attorney I paid $xx,xxx to will have a 10% chance of getting that DUID reduced with no “Please, Court, have mercy on this sick person” angle, and, if not,
…………………I GO TO PRISON
AFTER I-502 IF I’M A HEALTHY TOKER:
* If I need just an ounce, I don’t need a $200 permission slip
* I can buy weed in a well-run regulated store
* I can possess 28 grams or less, but 28g-40g I GO TO JAIL and >40g I GO TO PRISON
* If I grow even one marijuana plant I GO TO PRISON
* If I and my healthy friends collectively cultivate WE GO TO PRISON
* If I freely share this weed with my collective healthy friends WE GO TO PRISON
* I can possess 16 ounces of hash or hash oil and 72 ounces of tincture.
* If I get behind the wheel and I’m over 5ng/mL…
…and I demonstrate impairment
……and a cop pulls me over and gives me a field sobriety test
………and I fail that test and he suspects my impairment isn’t alcohol based
…………and in the hour it takes to get to the hospital and do a blood draw I’m still above 5ng/mL
……………then I’ll be charged with a DUI and that blood evidence will be used against me and
………………I GO TO PRISON
So, how is it my “AFTER” still has a whole bunch of “PRISON” in it, your “AFTER” still only has one “PRISON” in it, and you’re complaining about being “recriminalized”?
I’ll say it again: if your objection to I-502 is some innocent toke-all-day patient who’s unimpaired is going to get a DUID, you should be counseling them to never drive NOW. The standard cops need to take a patient’s blood on suspicion of DUID is exactly the same now as it will be post I-502, so your patients are already taking that risk. If you’re not counseling patients not to drive, you’re asking them to take the risk they’ll need to pay a DUI attorney thousands of dollars to get the charge reduced… so who’s lining the pockets of lawyers here?
The portion of “It is unlawful for any person to possess a controlled substance unless the substance was obtained directly from, or pursuant to, a valid prescription or order of a practitioner while acting in the course of his or her professional practice, or except as otherwise authorized by this chapter.” is superseded by the portion of I-502 that says “(3) The possession, by a person twenty-one years of age or older, of useable marijuana or marijuana-infused products in amounts that do not exceed those set forth in section 15(3) of this act is not a violation of this section, this chapter, or any other provision of Washington state law.” ANY OTHER PROVISION would include RCW 69.50.4013(1).
Discussion with Russ Belville about the I-502 “legalization” initiative in Washington
This discussion has taken place on both facebook and the NORML stash blog.
http://stash.norml.org/norml-endorses-washingtons-i-502-legalization-initiative/comment-page-2#comment-85898
http://www.facebook.com/utah.pirate/posts/323446824368871?notif_t=share_comment
http://xcannabis.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/New_Approach_Washington_Marijuana_Initiative.pdf
A few comments that stuck out to me are these:
I said to Russ this:
xcannabis.com
February 21, 2012 at 8:44 pm | Permalink
Legalization? Really? I think that definition and the loose use of words like “legalization” should be re-examined here.
I would call I-502, “decriminalization” on one hand with the one ounce thing. And “more prohibition” on the DUID lingo. But not legalization.
And about the 1 ounce possession issue. It must be bought from a state regulated dispensary for it to be “legal”, and as we saw with SB 5073, the state won’t allow for state regulated dispensaries.
So we are back to square one. There will not be legal ounces if there are no legal dispensaries. The only new thing Washington will get is this crappy DUID law.
http://xcannabis.com/2011/07/does-naw-really-have-a-chance/
Russ replied:
“Radical” Russ Belville
February 22, 2012 at 1:47 pm | Permalink
Wrong. The one ounce possession of buds or sixteen ounce possession of hash and hash oil or seventy-two ounce possession of tincture exists as a protection on its own. See in the post earlier:
In other words, it does not say “The possession, by a person twenty-one years of age or older, of useable marijuana or marijuana-infused products purchased only from state-authorized outlets in amounts that do not exceed…” as you are falsely asserting.
Also wrong on “decriminalization”. Decriminalization is what we call it when a state no longer has criminal sanction against a pot smoker. Oregon is “decrim” – you get a ticket, a fine, loss of D/L, but no criminal punishment.
“Legalization” is when there is no punishment whatsoever for a pot smoker. That’s what I-502 does. When it passes, I can possess an ounce and get no fine, no ticket, no loss of D/L, no nothing.
Furthermore, when something is “decrim” it is still against the law, and therefore, detecting it is a probable cause to investigate law breaking. When something is “legal”, it isn’t a crime, and detecting it is no probable cause to investigate.
What you’re conflating is “legalization” with “legalization of possession and cultivation for personal use”. In a previous post, I explained how legalizing possession is “legalization” and legalizing cultivation in addition to that is “legalization-er”. I-502 legalizes personal possession and it legalizes commercial cultivation. I would prefer that it legalized personal cultivation, but its sponsors found polling showing that voters weren’t going to support home grows.
What I do know is that convincing voters somewhere down the line that personal cultivation should be legal will be much easier for an organized group of legal personal marijuana users to accomplish than another request from a disorganized group of criminals and patients. (And don’t dare try to say that the gubmint will resist that because they want to protect their pot tax cash cow… because then you will have painted all the dispensary and clinic owners opposing I-502 with the same brush.)
I replied with:
xcannabis.com
February 22, 2012 at 7:26 pm | Permalink
Russ this conversation is a little hard to keep up with as it is not threaded. I like the “Disqus” module for wordpress, it makes it easier to login, easier to comment, and it keeps the comments threaded so that replies are organized according to the original post. Just a thought.
Anyway, I think that the complicated law proposed in I-502. Which is the longest initiative I have read in a long time, its very ambiguous as to what can be interpreted from it.
I know I am not legal expert. But the police that try to interpret complicated laws are sometimes less adept than a layman like myself.
I told you about when I got arrested and put in jail for “using the streets without a permit” right?
Anyway, you say that the marijuana bought and used under this law does not need to come from a licensed distributor. I think that is debatable.
First let me ask you a few questions.
1. If not bought from a licensed distributor, how does one legally obtain the marijuana?
My answer is: through illegal means
2. If governor Gregoire refused to allow legal medical dispensaries, do you think consumer/recreational dispensaries will have any more legitimacy than the medical dispensaries that were vetoed?
And my last point is this ambiguous section that you referred to:
“Sec. 20. RCW 69.50.4013 and 2003 c 53 s 334 are each amended to read as follows:
(1) It is unlawful for any person to possess a controlled substance unless the substance was obtained directly from, or pursuant to, a valid prescription or order of a practitioner while acting in the course of his or her professional practice, or except as otherwise authorized by this chapter.
(2) Except as provided in RCW 69.50.4014, any person who violates this section is guilty of a class C felony punishable under chapter 9A.20 RCW.
(3) The possession, by a person twenty-one years of age or older, of useable marijuana or marijuana-infused products in amounts that do not exceed those set forth in section 15(3) of
30
this act is not a violation of this section, this chapter, or any other provision of Washington state law.”
—
Hmm. If it is unlawful for any person to possess a controlled substance unless the substance was obtained directly from, or pursuant to, a valid prescription or order of a practitioner while acting in the course of his or her professional practice, or except as otherwise authorized by this chapter.. Where does that leave room for a person to possess a controlled substance purchased or obtained by illegal means?
Russ this conversation is a little hard to keep up with as it is not threaded. I like the “Disqus” module for wordpress, it makes it easier to login, easier to comment, and it keeps the comments threaded so that replies are organized according to the original post. Just a thought.
Anyway, I think that the complicated law proposed in I-502. Which is the longest initiative I have read in a long time, its very ambiguous as to what can be interpreted from it.
I know I am not legal expert. But the police that try to interpret complicated laws are sometimes less adept than a layman like myself.
I told you about when I got arrested and put in jail for “using the streets without a permit” right?
Anyway, you say that the marijuana bought and used under this law does not need to come from a licensed distributor. I think that is debatable.
First let me ask you a few questions.
1. If not bought from a licensed distributor, how does one legally obtain the marijuana?
My answer is: through illegal means
2. If governor Gregoire refused to allow legal medical dispensaries, do you think consumer/recreational dispensaries will have any more legitimacy than the medical dispensaries that were vetoed?
And my last point is this ambiguous section that you referred to:
“Sec. 20. RCW 69.50.4013 and 2003 c 53 s 334 are each amended to read as follows:
(1) It is unlawful for any person to possess a controlled substance unless the substance was obtained directly from, or pursuant to, a valid prescription or order of a practitioner while acting in the course of his or her professional practice, or except as otherwise authorized by this chapter.
(2) Except as provided in RCW 69.50.4014, any person who violates this section is guilty of a class C felony punishable under chapter 9A.20 RCW.
(3) The possession, by a person twenty-one years of age or older, of useable marijuana or marijuana-infused products in amounts that do not exceed those set forth in section 15(3) of
30
this act is not a violation of this section, this chapter, or any other provision of Washington state law.”
—
Hmm. If it is unlawful for any person to possess a controlled substance unless the substance was obtained directly from, or pursuant to, a valid prescription or order of a practitioner while acting in the course of his or her professional practice, or except as otherwise authorized by this chapter.. Where does that leave room for a person to possess a controlled substance purchased or obtained by illegal means?
Russ – We have never once called recreational users criminals, nor have we said patients deserve special treatment. It’s I-502 sponsors and supporters who have continually suggested an exemption for patients in the MUCA as a hail-mary pass to fix I-502 once it’s passed. All we have asked for is a policy based on science, ethics and compassion – not polling and political favors.
We would also like to point out the glaringly obvious flaw in your suggestion that we make yet another sacrifice for the recreational movement by allowing ourselves to be recriminalized because, after all, we get to use handicap placards so we should quit our bitching. Oh, and that rose-colored city in ANOTHER STATE has fabulous public transportation, so the entire state of Washington obviously must too. Don’t forget all those “urban” areas with bus systems! Booming metropolises like Easton, Ferndale and Okanogan surely have adequate public transit, right? Quit yer damn bitchin’ and get out your canes! Recreational Russ needs his legal ounce!
Maybe NORML or NAW with their financial backing and winning ideas can be the ones to “muster enough compassion to spend time organizing more rideshares and driver services and delivery services.” Please make sure these newfound services that were once unnecessary aren’t too cost prohibitive. After all, we are talking about terminally ill patients and those with debilitating diseases. Perhaps all those recreational users would like to sacrifice on our behalf by paying for the life-altering accomodations we will now have to make so they can have their legal ounce.
What was it you were saying about “pragmatic politics,” Recreational Russ?
And since when does NORML compare alcohol and pot, using Blood Alcohol Content as an argument that per se laws calling for THC blood testing are nothing to be concerned about? Talk about inconsistency. Do NORML and Recreational Russ really expect us to believe that per se DUI standards for alcohol are unscientific? or is it that per se laws for DUIC are based on science? Please. Get your story straight, NORML!
For the record, as long as NORML and NAW keep hammering home “the perfect is the enemy of the good,” we will continue to play the “ethics and reason are the enemy of flawed policy” card. We are entirely pragmatic and that is why we have been able to choke down flawed policies in the past, provided those policies do not force us to trade incarceration of one group for incarceration of another. But as much as NAW wants to compare I-502 to policies in the past, there has NEVER been a legalization or medical marijuana law which offers up arrest and incarceration as political fodder. Never. It hasn’t been done before because experienced political campaigns know better than to alienate their base in this manner.
As far as Recreational Russ putting his “money where his mouth is,” he’s already publicly announced to the entire internet realm that he will support I-502 but won’t be driving himself to that pipe-dream of a pot store that NAW’s been peddaling. If I-502′s DUIC provisions are so innocuous, why not drive here Russ? You’ve admittedly made plenty of irresponsible decisions to get behind the wheel in the past, what’s stopping you from driving in Washington if I-502 passes?
Last but not least, Patients Against I-502 has been abundantly clear that we oppose the DUIC provision contained in I-502 and the DUIC provision alone. We have never made claims about possession limits or home growing or licensing fees or anything else. We acknowledge that many things can be “fixed” after the fact, DUIC just doesn’t happen to be one of those things. I’d much rather see the headline “WASHINGTON VOTERS REJECT FAULTY LEGALIZATION PROPOSAL” than the headline “INNOCENT, UNIMPAIRED DRIVERS BECOME COLLATERAL DAMAGE FOR PLOY BY POWER-HUNGRY POLITICAL ACTIVISTS”
Because people of prestige and influence have to carefully decide what they support. If they throw their stature behind a pie-in-the-sky “true legalization” initiative that has (a) no funding, (b) no big name support, (c) no chance in hell of passing, they undermine their credibility and brand.
I know some people like to think “If only NORML, Rick Steves, insert-big-name-billionaire-funder-here would get behind the ‘Legalize All the Pot You Want Anytime You Want Anywhere You Want And Free Tens of Thousands of Pot Prisoners Initiative of 2012′, then it could get the funding, make the ballot, and win!” But it doesn’t work that way. Professional activists start with the legalization wish list, professional opponents start with the prohibition scare list. The activists writing the initiative start polling to discover which parts of the wish list will turn off a majority and which parts of the scare list will resonate with a majority. Big name funders and big name celebrities want to know their money and fame will not be wasted on a losing effort.
It’s politics – the sausage factory, if you will. Compromises are made to craft something that will (a) attract funding, (b) get big name support, (c) have a decent chance of passing. I-502 has achieved all three and every “true legalization” supporter who’s told me they’re going to make the ballot with a grassroots effort has failed ever since I started working on this issue.
How you could possibly see 630,000 Washingtonians given the legal right to possess a pound of hash as “regressing back to 1937″ simply astounds me. I-502′s passage will create a precedent to be sure – a precedent that ONE state in America has LEGAL MARIJUANA. Other states will envy Washington’s tax revenue, new industry, reduced police costs, and begin trying to legalize their states. A few years of a few states with legalization – even a limited, one ounce, no home grow legalization – will prove acceptance of marijuana doesn’t cause the sky to fall and loosening restrictions becomes easier. I too, paint a much rosier legalization picture than I-502 provides… but I-502 finally gives us a canvas on which to paint! Right now, you can’t paint any picture of legalization.
I clicked on CannaCare.org. I saw a link on that page for Sentry Medical. It said:
So I called that number and told the pleasant lady on the line that I was a patient in Oregon moving to Washington and needed to get my recommendation. She said it was normally $200, but would discount me $50 because I’m an Oregon patient.
I apologize if Sentry Medical makes no financial contribution to you for your promotion of their services on your website. Certainly there couldn’t be any quid-pro-quo in that relationship that would influence you to oppose something that would severely impact their business model.
As for Stanford… heh heh… you ought to make some attempt to get your facts straight on that one… let’s just say that I-502′s impact on THCF Medical Clinics is something I look forward to.
As for your claims:
“Patients will still grow their own medication…” YES, and they will still get to grow fifteen plants while us healthy people have to pay the state-taxed price.
“the price of state sponsored pot hits $500…” HUH? You really believe that going from an illegal, prohibition-tariffed market to a legal taxed market will be more expensive? Have you taken even an introductory economics course? Alcohol is one of the highest-taxed commodities and its prices today are still far lower (in relative dollars) than the prices during alcohol prohibition:
“the recreational crowd faces felony manufacturing charges for growing a plant.” UH, you mean like NOW?
“Between the manufacturing charges and the DUID’s, the NORML legal referral service should have their phones ringing of their hooks!” – there were 16,000 marijuana arrests last year in Washington, there were 40,000 DUI arrests, but most of those were for alcohol. I am still searching for cannabis-only DUI data for Washington, but I’ll bet you it’s less than 16,000. Now, since personal manufacturing is illegal NOW, there’s no change of potential NORML lawyer clients for that. Since commercial manufacturing will be legal, there will be fewer of those cases. And since possession is legal, many fewer of those cases. Overall, I-502 sounds like a bad business move if you’re trying to keep criminal defense lawyers employed. However, I’ll grant that civil and business lawyers will have a field day, because a whole new growth industry will open up and need lawyers every step of the way.
“God forbid you get caught with an ounce of pot that wasn’t from a state licensed store. That’s a felony, right?” Nope, as listed below, the one ounce possession of buds or sixteen ounce possession of hash and hash oil or seventy-two ounce possession of tincture exists as a protection on its own. See in the post earlier:
In other words, it does not say “The possession, by a person twenty-one years of age or older, of useable marijuana or marijuana-infused products purchased only from state-authorized outlets in amounts that do not exceed…” as you are falsely asserting.
However, thank you for joining in the discussion and abandoning the smear that I would somehow censor you or not post your opinions.
Oh, and by the way, the implication that I’m using “sock puppets” (alter-egos) to bolster my position is offensive to me and to the majority of my readers who support I-502 and are chiming in on the comments. Do you really think that after writing a few thousand words in my own voice, I have the time and need to make fake accounts to agree with me?
Again, Steve, if you really want to have this debate in a forum where more than your little echo chamber will hear, you’re always welcome to call-in to our show at 971-533-7111, 5pm Pacific every weekday, and have your voice heard. Just Monday, A Different View aired Don Skakie’s views for fifteen minutes on the issue, live, and I didn’t even break in to rebut his demonstrably false claims, like the one where a person 18-21 could get a DUI just because he inhaled someone else’s second-hand smoke!*
But for some reason, all the Screen Berets and Keyboard Kommandoes who beat me up from the safety of their internet connection grow strangely silent when it comes time to discuss the issue live on the air. Don’t be afraid. I’m not Bill O’Reilly – I won’t yell to cut your mic if I disagree with you. You’ll find I’m one of the politest hosts in talk radio – my favorite thing to do is to allow you to calmly make all the wack-ass claims you like so the audience can fully understand your position. Giving you airtime would help convince people to vote for I-502.
* Really. I’ve seen this scurrilous claim at PatientsAgainstI502 (“People under 21 can be convicted of DUI for merely being in the presence of cannabis smoke.”) and heard and read it repeated a few times by other “Patients Against Pragmatic Politics”. Rather than bore you with the numerous studies and citations showing absolute proof that mere inhalation of second-hand pot smoke cannot trigger a positive drug test, I’ll just appeal to your common sense. 1) Don’t you think if inhaling second hand pot smoke alone could fail your drug test that employees would be successfully using that excuse to beat workplace drug tests in court? 2) If you’re inhaling pot, and the THC in it is getting you high, then it has been metabolized by your body and what you’re exhaling doesn’t contain much, if any, THC. 3) If second hand pot smoke could trigger a test, don’t you think a whole lot of non-pot-smokers would have been busted for DUI in the US states that currently have true zero tolerance (of THC in blood OR metabolites in urine) for marijuana and driving?
Furthermore, Washington State currently has an alcohol DUI limit for those under 21 at .02 BAC. Where is the hue and cry that the illegal users of alcohol under age 21 have essentially a “zero tolerance” for alcohol, even though at .02 they are very likely not impaired? This article explains well how alcohol breathalyzers can be skewed by “mouth alcohol” residuals from things like mouthwash and belching. What about the 18-20-year-old patients who must use medicines that contain alcohol in them?!? From the “what about the patients who’ll suffer even the remotest risk?” angle, if this standard and tech were offered in the 1930′s as part of the 21st Amendment, you’d be voting to oppose it.
As usual, ole Russ doesn’t let the facts get in the way of his propaganda campaign.
Russ writes:
“And remember, Steve’s company, CannaCare, charges $200 every time someone in Washington has to come in for a doctor’s permission slip, every year. When I-502 passes, those people who have only jumped through that hoop to not be arrested for their occasional pot smoking won’t need permission slips any more.”
At least make some attempt at getting the facts right before you try to smear me with them and make it look like I’m making arguments against 502 simply because they’ll impact me financially. You’ll have to try a different smear.
CannaCare is a patient support and education organization. It does not write recommendations to patients. We provide free legal assistance to patients and have for several years now.
I do not own a clinic that writes medical recommendations to patients. I do, however, provide FREE patient advocacy services to patients at clinics. I’m not paid a dime by the clinic owners to do that, though they do provide me with a free lunch.
I think you have me mixed up with your buddy, fat Paul Stanford. He’s a big NORML supporter, right?
Whether I-502 passes or not, and I personally think it’s “dead on arrival”, the clinics will go on. Patients will still grow their own medication, especially when the price of state sponsored pot hits $500 and ounce….and the recreational crowd faces felony manufacturing charges for growing a plant. Someone had their head up their ass when they wrote a ‘legalization” bill that wouldn’t let you grow a plant without going to prison. Nice job! I can certainly see why NORML would support that, Russ.
Between the manufacturing charges and the DUID’s, the NORML legal referral service should have their phones ringing of their hooks! God forbid you get caught with an ounce of pot that wasn’t from a state licensed store. That’s a felony, right? Welcome to the “New Definition” of “legalization. The world according to NORML and their attorney members.
Steve Sarich
Wrong. The one ounce possession of buds or sixteen ounce possession of hash and hash oil or seventy-two ounce possession of tincture exists as a protection on its own. See in the post earlier:
In other words, it does not say “The possession, by a person twenty-one years of age or older, of useable marijuana or marijuana-infused products purchased only from state-authorized outlets in amounts that do not exceed…” as you are falsely asserting.
Also wrong on “decriminalization”. Decriminalization is what we call it when a state no longer has criminal sanction against a pot smoker. Oregon is “decrim” – you get a ticket, a fine, loss of D/L, but no criminal punishment.
“Legalization” is when there is no punishment whatsoever for a pot smoker. That’s what I-502 does. When it passes, I can possess an ounce and get no fine, no ticket, no loss of D/L, no nothing.
Furthermore, when something is “decrim” it is still against the law, and therefore, detecting it is a probable cause to investigate law breaking. When something is “legal”, it isn’t a crime, and detecting it is no probable cause to investigate.
What you’re conflating is “legalization” with “legalization of possession and cultivation for personal use”. In a previous post, I explained how legalizing possession is “legalization” and legalizing cultivation in addition to that is “legalization-er”. I-502 legalizes personal possession and it legalizes commercial cultivation. I would prefer that it legalized personal cultivation, but its sponsors found polling showing that voters weren’t going to support home grows.
What I do know is that convincing voters somewhere down the line that personal cultivation should be legal will be much easier for an organized group of legal personal marijuana users to accomplish than another request from a disorganized group of criminals and patients. (And don’t dare try to say that the gubmint will resist that because they want to protect their pot tax cash cow… because then you will have painted all the dispensary and clinic owners opposing I-502 with the same brush.)
Again, nothing’s been deleted – you’re all welcome to read Steve’s tirades.
One big informercial for NORML? Yes, you’re right. NORML is an organization that puts out a blog and podcast and internet stream and website to promote ourselves and our mission. I’m sorry, did you think our donors wanted us to spend their money to promote something else?
And remember, Steve’s company, CannaCare, charges $200 every time someone in Washington has to come in for a doctor’s permission slip, every year. When I-502 passes, those people who have only jumped through that hoop to not be arrested for their occasional pot smoking won’t need permission slips any more.
Meanwhile, NORML, presumably an organization just looking for donations, is supporting I-502, which will mean thousands of Washington pot smokers who will no longer need to pay a NORML attorney to defend them on a pot charge.
As for “a lonely site” – we get about 2,000 hits a day. We account for 14% of norml.org’s overall traffic, which is ranked #8,397 most-trafficked site in America and #39,518 globally. The greatest-ranked site I can think of that opposes I-502 legalization – tokeofthetown.com – ranks #11,601 nationally and #45,498 globally. THCList.com comes in at #249,770 nationally, #656,368 globally, Cannacare.org is ranked globally at #2,612,319, XCannabis.com comes in at #2,203,148, and PatientsAgainstI502.org is globally #2,458,750 and nationally #350,697, with an average of 7 page views a day. (Oddly enough, its best ranking is in Salt Lake City at #11,052.)
In fact, THIS ONE POST has already had 395 page views in just six days – more hits than PatientsAgainstI502.org has had in an average eight-week span for its entire website. No, I don’t worry about loneliness when I know that nine out of ten pot smokers are healthy enough to put in a cage and largely agree that it is lunacy to oppose any reasonable chance at ending that.
So, you don’t think the arrest of hundreds of thousands of healthy tokers since 1998 hasn’t led to the wrongful arrest and incarceration of otherwise innocent, law-abiding citizens? I think your position here has you presuming that getting caught for possession is something we did that wasn’t “innocent”… again, we’re “criminals” and you’re “patients”, right? It’s that same old “but I deserve special rights because I’m sick – I have to smoke pot! You ‘recreational’ users can choose not to!…” so therefore, we deserve to remain criminals for another 2 or more years while you enjoy home growing 15 plants, possessing a pound-and-a-half, shopping at quasi-legal dispensaries, not to mention for many of you, handicap placards that let you park wherever you like and, in cities, rideshare and public transportation options you get for free or reduced cost. Here in Portland, our Tri-Met will take calls from people in wheelchairs, send out a handicap-accessible van right to your door, and drive you around town to your errands. In most urban areas of Washington, there are bus systems one can take and never trip a ng/mL test. Maybe “Patients Against Pragmatic Politics” could muster enough compassion to spend time organizing more rideshares and driver services and delivery services to deal with those who’d be afraid of getting a 5ng/mL per se DUID instead of fighting to keep me and the other 90% of Washington’s tokers criminals.
Which, by the way, your patients are risking NOW. Say you’ve got this patient, the hypothetical one you’re always bringing up who has to smoke every hour or two and has built up such a tolerance that he’s both over 5ng/mL every waking moment AND perfectly capable of driving unimpaired. When he gets behind the wheel NOW, the chance he’s going to get pulled over or wrecked into and a cop has the cause to get a blood draw exists NOW and will be exactly the same level of risk post I-502 (wait, no, it will be *less risk*, because the possession of marijuana and smell of marijuana will no longer be a contributing factor in the probable cause). So, if you’re frightening patients that they’re likely to get a blood draw post 502, you should be telling them to not drive NOW, because the blood draw chance NOW is as bad or worse.
The difference, of course, is that pre-502, the patient can fight the presumption of DUI in court. But guess what? If the prosecutor walks into court with elevated ng/mL blood draw, especially anything above 10 or 20, you’re likely to be convicted of a DUI anyway, especially since getting to the blood draw stage meant the cop had something – a DRE, dash cam of you failing a field sobriety test, evidence of you driving erratically, etc. – that could convict you alone and the blood draw is just buttressing the case. In Colorado, before they fought the 5ng/mL fight, we pointed out how 90% of DUI charges in that state resulted in convictions, even without the per se. I don’t know the figures for Washington, but I’ll presume it’s also a large percentage of success for DUI prosecutors. Now, to fight that in court, you’ll be paying tens of thousands of dollars to your defense attorney for a small chance of reduction or acquittal. So, are you NOW telling your patients to not drive, unless they can afford a five-figure lawyer bill? (Also of note: Washington is a “affirmative defense” state. While your doctor’s permission slip might lead a cop to leave you alone, technically he can arrest you for possession of even a gram of marijuana. Presenting that “affirmative defense” in court is also a five-figure lawyer bill. So here’s a chance with I-502 to actually protect patients and me and 630,000 others from arrest and that lawyer bill when they leave the house with an ounce of weed, a pound of hash, or four pints of tincture… and you want to oppose it on the off chance someone who would have likely gotten a DUI anyway gets an automatic DUI?)
Your stance is also inconsistent. Since 1998, lots of innocent, unimpaired people have done time for a DUI. Take alcohol. There is a per se 0.08 BAC for drivers. If they test above that, they are automatically guilty of DUI, regardless of the circumstances. However, there is plenty of evidence showing that alcoholics, for instance, can drive pretty well at above a 0.08. While there is a dose-dependent, causal relationship between alcohol consumption and driving impairment (unlike cannabis), a 0.08 BAC does not guarantee you were actually impaired. So, are “Patients Against Pragmatic Politics” going to start lobbying to remove per se alcohol DUID standards, too?
Nothing in politics is perfect. You can play the “ethics and reason being the enemy of flawed policy” card if you like, but then you have to defend the extremely flawed policy of Washington’s medical marijuana law. Did you find it ethical in 1998 to deny protection to PTSD sufferers under Washington’s medmj initiative? Was it reasonable to enshrine a vague “60 day supply” that guaranteed some patients in unfriendly counties would have to fight a sheriff in court over what a “60 day supply” was? Remember, this was in the echo of California’s Prop 215 two years prior that let anyone use marijuana for any medical reason a doctor would approve of, but you supported a “flawed policy” that eviscerated much of the patient protection precedent that Prop 215 had set. You “horse traded” things like “for any illness” for a strict eight-condition list because pragmatically, the former couldn’t win in Washington. It was better in 1998 to support a flawed policy than the status quo. (Ironically, you have a 24 ounce possession limit defined as your “60 day supply” because Oregon set a 24 ounce limit in 2005. The bill that did that, SB1085, was vociferously opposed by “Patients Against Political Pragmatism” because it “horse traded”, too. It raised our supply from 3 ounces to 24 ounces, but in doing so traded away an affirmative defense to possession charges above 24 ounces. You shoulda heard the wailing and gnashing of teeth over that one. “Why, the patients who need the most medicine are being thrown under the bus! Cops and prosecutors will have a field day because anything over a pound and a half will be a slam dunk!” We (Oregon NORML) explained that so many more patients will be protected with EIGHT TIMES THE POSSESSION LIMIT that few would need an affirmative defense to the current >3 ounces, and they complained that we were sacrificing a few of the most vulnerable for higher limits. In the seven years since, patients have found the 24 ounce limit to be a much better deal and cases where an “affirmative defense” to >24 ounces would have succeeded are very very rare.)
No, you supported the 1998 medmj initiative because a) it helped more people than it hurt, b) it made significant progress toward legalization, c) it was actually on the ballot, and d) it could win. The same applies to I-502. Since you’ve been protected for your cannabis use for thirteen years, perhaps you don’t see it, but it is better in 2012 to support a flawed policy than the status quo. The status quo is that 16,000 innocent tokers will be arrested in 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016… until whatever year it is you think the perfect legalization can make the ballot and actually win. If you’re not comfortable voting the way the DEA, the cops, the prison guards union, the Mexican drug gangs, your local high school weed dealer, and the Drug Czar want you to vote on legalization, vote yes on I-502.
And remember – this is “money where my mouth is”. I’m not a patient, but I guarantee I’m above 5ng/mL any waking moment. I’m the guy taking that risk of the per se DUID every time I cross the Columbia River into Vancouver (about once a month) and I don’t have the “please have mercy, I’m sick and disbled!” card to play. And I’m supporting I-502 because not only have I never been pulled over since I moved to Oregon in 2003 on suspicion of DUI, even with my NORML stickers on the car, pot leaf cap on my head, RAD RUS license plates, reeking of herb, and a Google footprint a mile wide and covered in weed, but I’ve never been pulled over for DUI in my life PERIOD since I got my license 28 years ago on my sixteenth birthday, even back in my younger irresponsible days when I drank, smoked, snorted, and dropped things I never should have before getting behind the wheel.
Seriously, the longer I’m in this game, the more I see medical marijuana, as an industry and a demographic, becoming more and more protective of its own turf and less inclined to support legalization. If it wasn’t per se DUID, “Patients Against Pragmatic Politics” would be complaining that I-502 will destroy their quasi-legal dispensaries. If it wasn’t that, it would be that the age limit is 21, or the possession limit is too low, or it doesn’t allow home grow, or the state licensing fees are too high, or the taxes are too high, or the initiative was printed in Times New Roman font and not Helvetica. Many of them support “true legalization” – removal of all marijuana penalties with no imposition of any sort of regulatory structure, possession limitations, or taxation – just like alcohol prohibition ended in Washington State. However, that’s disingenuous because Washington State had liquor laws and legal alcohol prior to prohibition for a hundred years; the people weren’t supporting a policy to just leave alcohol completely unregulated, they were supporting a return to the legalization they had previously enjoyed. This “true legalization” being floated sounds to average voters like “complete marijuana anarchy” and “don’t worry, the legislature will come up with to control it.”
I love the concept and I’d vote for it in a second. But will 50%+1 Washington voters? No. Will big $ billionaire financiers? No. Will organizations with a track record of successful initiative placements? No. Will big name law enforcement endorsees, like a former FBI special agent, a city attorney, a former US attorney, state representatives, and medical professionals? No. So you can long for the pie in the sky all you like, but the choice today is imperfect legalization vs. continued prohibition. “WASHINGTON LEGALIZES MARIJUANA” is a headline that will change the world. “WASHINGTON REJECTS MARIJUANA LEGALIZATION” is a headline that will further embolden the feds to crackdown on medical marijuana in the state (see: Prop 19 losing in 2010, Fed DoJ medmj crackdown in California, 2011). There will not be a “WASHINGTON NARROWLY AVERTS DISASTROUS DUI LAW AGAINST PATIENTS” anywhere but cannabis community media that nobody but us reads.
Russ asks: So why is it that when we want to protect the majority of healthy tokers from arrest in 2012, it’s “throwing patients under the bus”, but when we wanted to protect just the minority of sick tokers from arrest in 1998, it wasn’t “healthy tokers not allowed on the bus”?
The answer is quite simple, actually. Every single one of the concessions Russ mentions wouldn’t directly lead to the wrongful arrest and incarceration of otherwise innocent, law-abiding citizens. More restrictive than we’d like? Yes. Cause innocent, unimpaired people to go to jail? No. THAT IS THE DIFFERENT HERE. Patient opposition is not a case of “the perfect being the enemy of the good.” It is ethics and reason being the enemy of flawed policy.
@Steve Sarich, I am genuinely glad that NORML allows people to have this open dialog.
“I recently said in a parallel conversation on facebook the following about I-502 and it’s supporters:
It seems like some of these folks who have done little to support I-1068, or I-1149, or I-505, or WSCA, are more than willing to give a lot of press and money and time to this horribly written I-502.
People who Ive respected for years like Rick Steves says “The other initiatives wouldn’t pass in the general public, but I-502 would”.
What the hell has Rick Steves done to get the right message out to the general public. Has Rick Steves done ANYTHING to support I-1068, I-1149, I-505 or WSCA? No! In fact, during HempFest, Rick just talked smack on I-505 and promoted that crappy I-502.
If we make I-502 the status-quo for “legalization”, then we as a movement are regressing back to 1937, not moving forward to 2013.
When I paint the picture of legalization in my mind I-502 is not the picture I see.”
Glad to see that the blog has degenerated to the point that Russ is just talking to himself and a couple of alter-egos that all, conveniently, support Russ and Alison’s positions on the initiative.
When one edits out all the legitimate debate, there’s no reason to come here to discuss anything. This will become a very lonely site (just as it is now).
The message will be heard elsewhere, where people can actually hear both sides of an argument….not just the opinion of the blog sponsor (NORML)….and Russ…the messenger.
Just delete all of us that oppose I-502. We’ll take the debate to sites/blogs that actually want debate on the issues and not just total control over the message. This site is one big infomercial for NORML and whatever BS, in whatever state, they are supporting this month in order to gather more donations from those states. Did anyone not already know this? Then you haven’t been around the movement long enough yet.
Can’t wait to hear your next “news” blast.
Steve
Legalization? Really? I think that definition and the loose use of words like “legalization” should be re-examined here.
I would call I-502, “decriminalization” on one had with the one ounce thing. And “more prohibition” on the DUID lingo. But not legalization.
And about the 1 ounce possession issue. It must be bought from a state regulated dispensary for it to be “legal”, and as we saw with SB 5073, the state won’t allow for state regulated dispensaries.
So we are back to square one. There will not be legal ounces if there are no legal dispensaries. The only new thing Washington will get is this crappy DUID law.
http://xcannabis.com/2011/07/does-naw-really-have-a-chance/
It may have been delayed for moderation, bravely anonymous Screen Beret. Any first post or post with multiple links is going to require my moderation. Once you’ve been accepted the first time, you should be able to post from then on, so long as you don’t post a ton of links.
However, if you’ve come here for name-calling and veiled threats, I will delete everything you post. Stick to the topic. I welcome all sorts of debate on the topic.
To be fair, Pennsylvania’s 5ng/mL per se limit was amended to just 1ng/mL (essentially a zero tolerance, as tests’ threshold is 2ng/mL) last year. However, Benjamin is right that the first few per se DUIDs that come through Washington’s courts are going to be vigorously challenged. Besides, when weed is legal, you’re now arguing about the proper cut-off for legal users of a legal substance, not people whose use of weed makes them criminals per se. Pennsylvanians don’t get that argument.
Plus, with legal weed and I-502 directing pot tax money to UW and WSU to study impairment, we are going to have state universities showing just how unscientific, unjust, and unnecessary* 5ng/mL per se is. I’d rather not have to hope for the legislature to undo a 5ng/mL, but the best chance of that happening is in a state with legal weed and two publicly-funded universities debunking it.
*Unnecessary if 502-hater’s claims about regular tokers’ driving abilities prove true, that is.
vote yes on I-502! The problems will be resolved through science. here in Montana we have a 5ng per ml law that has already been tested through a couple of cases were the driver was acquitted because the law itself is unjust and unscientific. please help the cannabis consumers across the nation get some motivation and pass this initiative and roll the dice. this could be the defining moment for the marijuana community, lets work together and get legalization at least in one form or another.
You’d have to ask Sensible Washington why, in multiple attempts at the ballot, they have failed to gain enough signatures, funding, or support to get their vision of legalization before the voters.
I think you’re right: the voters don’t want it – “it” being “remove all criminal penalties for marijuana” without implementing any sort of regulatory controls on cannabis, deferring that to the state legislature IF they take up the issue. You may be right: the people may have thought going from ‘all marijuana is illegal’ to ‘you can have as much as you want anywhere you want anytime you want with absolutely no regulation or controls’ was a bit much.
Maybe I-502′s much more cautious approach was something more people could agree with, as evidenced by the fact it did get the sigs, it did make the ballot, it does have funding, and it does have major big-name support.
I highly doubt you’ve done an accurate random sample of the voters of Snohomish County. My bet is that your sample is skewed heavily toward patients and chronic recreational smokers. Even so, tokers aren’t the votes we need to pass legalization – it’s non-tokers’ votes we need.
As for “accomplish jack diddly” – I love that ridiculous assertion. NORML has directly sponsored, co-supported, supplied research and volunteers for, and helped raise public awareness necessary to decriminalize in fourteen states and medicalize in sixteen states. We have sued the federal government on numerous occassions. Our legal committee has kept countless thousands of cannabis consumers out of jail. Gallup Poll numbers on legalization have risen from 12% to 50% in our forty-year tenure. Your criticism is as silly as demeaning the NAACP for not eradicating racism in its 103 years.
Your closer is telling: “patients [sic] rights first or VOTE NO on 502″. I gots mine. After 502, you patients will still be the only people who can grow their own. After 502, you patients will still be the only people who can possess a pound and a half. After 502, you’ll still be able to have caregivers and freely exchange medicine with one another. After 502, patients who don’t need that much can forgo paying for their $200 permission slip. But because one of you patients who tokes all damn day might get behind the wheel and might exhibit signs of impairment behind the wheel and might get pulled over by a cop and might be subject to a field sobriety test that might indicate impairment that might lead to a trip to the hospital for a blood draw that might still be above 5ng/mL after all the time it takes to get to the hospital and will get you a per se DUI conviction – because of all those “mights”, 630,000 Washington will be treated as criminals and 18,000 of them will get “per se” drug convictions.
Even more frustrating is the fact that all those “mights” can happen right now! If you drove erratically, got pulled over, exhibited signs of impairment, and failed a field sobriety test, you can be taken to the hospital now for a blood draw. And anything above 5ng/mL can be used as compelling evidence in your DUI trial. The difference, of course, is that now you can rebut that and work for a lower charge, like a reckless or inattentive driving, whereas post-502 it will be a DUI, period. So, tell me, how many DUI-cannabis-only prosecutions in Washington State last year? Was it less than the 18,000 marijuana arrests?
I just don’t understand the medicalizers any more. When medmj was up for a vote in 1998, did you hear any of them complain that it wasn’t perfect, so we have to vote it down? California set the precedent of “for any illness which marijuana provides relief” and an open-ended question as to distribution, cultivation, and possession. Did you complain back then that Washington was “throwing PTSD, anxiety, depression, and insomnia patients under the bus” because it wasn’t like Prop 215? Back in 1998, did I hear from you that an ill-defined “60 day supply” wasn’t going to protect patients in unfriendly counties and once in the law, it will never be improved? Did I ever hear that Measure 692 “wasn’t true legalization” and therefore couldn’t be supported?
No. Everybody in the cannabis community – INCLUDING THE HEALTHY TOKERS FOR WHOM MEDICAL MARIJUANA WOULD NEVER PROTECT – got behind I-692 and got medical marijuana passed in Washington State. In the intervening thirteen years, hundreds of thousands of healthy tokers not protected by medical marijuana have gotten marijuana convictions, while sick tokers saw their “60 day supply” become “15 plants and 24 ounces”. While healthy tokers continued to lose their freedom, lose jobs, lose custody of their kids, lose scholarships, and lose respect, sick tokers gained nice storefronts from which to buy their weed (moreso in W. Wash.) and more medical professionals (D.O.s, Naturopaths, Phys. Asst.) given the ability to qualify sick tokers for protection.
How long have you been a patient in Washington State? How long have you been driving? How many times have you been pulled over? How many times have you been given a field sobriety test? How many times were you then taken in for a blood test? Whatever those answers are, they will be the same after I-502 passes. I’m really flabbergasted by the inherent contradiction so many of you seem willing to endorse:
1) Patients toke all the time, will be above 5ng/mL, but have built up a tolerance so they will not be impaired.
2) Patients are going to be given marijuana DUIDs like crazy.
Wait, if 1) is true and these driving patients aren’t impaired, what are they doing that will be getting them DUIDs like crazy? Look, I’ve been driving around Oregon, Washington, and California for eight years now. I put 18,000 miles on my Jeep every year. My back window is festooned with “NORML”, “Mellow Mood” (a headshop), and “People’s Republic of Portland” bumper stickers. My license plate says “RAD RUS” and I have a Google footprint a mile wide and it’s covered in pot leaves. I smoke weed every day and I’m one of those people who would be >5ng/mL the moment I wake up. Yet I’ve been stopped by police on the West Coast exactly once, for a burnt taillight. Turns out, I had just finished helping with a trimming job and I reeked of fresh marijuana. After seeing my license, registration, and insurance, and recognizing I was in no way impaired, the cop gave me a warning and sent me on my way.
So chill out already. Will I-502 cause some toker innocent of impairment to get a DUI? Yes. But the alternative is a guaranteed 18,000 more marijuana arrests and the continuation of prohibition for at least two more years. These ballot chances aren’t a lock. Remember the anti-Prop 19 people last election, saying how it wasn’t “true legalization” and we’d get “real legalization” next time? Well, there is no “next time” this time in California. Do you want to take the chance Washington has no other chance at legalization for another two, four, or more years?
You know what I call people like NORML and you Russ…?
Where is my post?
I will slam you on every god damn forum punks…
Gee, with a respectful invitation like that, how could I refuse? You only forgot to double-dog-dare me, so I must decline. And I promise not to castigate you for putting off legalization for at least another two years and allowing 36,000 more Washingtonians to be arrested as drug criminals.
I actually don’t like people like Steve. This is because they run around complaining about things, but don’t have anything to offer in return. In reality, people like Steve will never be able to get any type of legalization on the ballot, and siding/listening to him is going to get us nowhere fast. This legalization attempt is a good one, and it doesn’t have very many flaws. What flaws it does have are NOT worse than what we are dealing with now, and it DOES move us close to the ideal legalization system. It is worth supporting, and especially worth supporting if you support legalization, but have nothing to offer yourself on the 2012 ballot. This initiative has already made the ballot, and it by-and-large very well written. It is a shot for something real, for something good, not just a fantasy talked about forever. My parents have waited their whole lives for legalization, and they are near death and may never see it… Let us not repeat their mistake, and actually legalize in a state this year so we can make it national debate finally: Something that cannot be ignored.
So I say to people like Steve: Get something on the ballot, or shut up and support what is already there. This is a very good post by Russ, and he is completely right. He makes sense, what he writes in this post, and I support Washington’s right to legalize this year. Don’t listen to Steve… He will just hold us back in the same old repetitive loop of complete fail that we have been stuck in for like 80 years. Let’s legalize cannabis in at least one state this year… We are going to have a hard enough time without people like Steve around. Let us just legalize, and shut people like him up!
I want cannabis legal, but not this way, I shall vote NO as shall every person I know of.. I do not support NORML or ACLU, both have proved to be negitive towards medical cannabis patients in this state. And if people in this state truly wanted legal bud then how come Sensible Washington could not get it done in two years?
ANSWER: voters don’t want it in this state.
I have walked and talked to everyone in my precinct and the vote here will be 70% no, that is part of snohomish county. These are registered voters, no guesses…fact…
Personally NORML been around 40 plus year and acomplish jack diddly… How long has ACLU been here in this state? What have they done for patients? Was there not a state that rescheduled marijuana and ACLU was part of it? Why is not ACLU part of that process here, or is it because of the possable GREED from our state? We are not falling for trash anymore, patients rights first or VOTE NO on 502.
Hey Russ,
Since I feel like Steve Sarich does in this debate with you and alison.
I invite you both to come over to our website at thclist.com and have a real debate about I-502 . I promise you will be able to post your viewpoints without being moderated. Neither will anyone else.
If your any kind of a advocate’ you will take me up on my offer.
And I promise not to tell you you have a limp dick for taking a legalize pill to soon.
Respectfully,
James Barber Sr.
Steve, I have posted every comment you’ve logged on this. If they don’t appear as quickly as you’d thought, it was because I hadn’t yet approved them in the moderation queue.
There’s obviously no point in me attempting to debate you or Alison on this site. You’re responding to my posts without actually posting them. You asking questions without posting my answers.
That’s truly despicable.
We’ll hit up both of you on every other blog in the country. Maybe you’ll actually decide to respond and debate the issues instead of just talking to yourselves.
Steve Sarich
CannaCare
OK… Check this out, Steve. It’s called “sourcing”.
DUID arrest statistics for Washington State (all alcohol and drugs)
1998 = 17,011
1999 = 29,919
2000 = 28,718
2001 = 29,787
2002 = 34,671
2003 = 36,802
2004 = 38,195
2005 = 36,848
2006 = 36,986
2007 = 37,317
2008 = 34,952
2009 = 36,831*
2010 = 34,098
*This is a figure from Washington State. For some reason, the FBI UCR puts this at 2009 = 16,421. In every other year, the FBI UCR and Washington State numbers are reasonably close.
So, that means that in the medical marijuana era in Washington State, the only time DUI arrests “skyrocketed” was their 76% increase in 1999, following implementation of the medical marijuana law. The next greatest increase was a 16% increase in 2002. Since then, there have been 11% fewer DUI arrests since the peak of 38,195 in 2004 and 7% fewer DUI arrests since just last year. Now, if you have some verifiable data from “the last few months”, I’ll be happy to analyze it.
Now, let’s test your hypothesis: “you’ll see many more of these cases being prosecuted once the prosecutors know they have a slam dunk win in court.”
Pennsylvania had a 5ng/mL per se DUID for cannabis instituted in 2004 (and, to be fair to you, Steve, that limit was reduced to 1ng/mL in 2011 – not a positive precedent for I-502 supporters who say we can fix the 5ng/mL later… however, cannabis isn’t legal in Pennsylvania, either – who knows how the argument goes if it’s legal?) If your hypothesis holds true, we should see a spike in DUI arrests around 2004, right? Well, there was an 11% spike in DUI arrests in 2001 and 2006, and DUI arrests are 24% greater since 2004 and 2% greater than last year.
However, this is very coarse data. I don’t have figures from Washington or Pennsylvania on what percentage of DUIDs are for THC. Pennsylvania doesn’t have medical marijuana. Pennsylvania does have DUI checkpoints; Washington doesn’t. So make of this all what you will, but there are some actual data to work with.
I don’t at all mean to make it sound benign. Did you catch the many times I’ve said I hate per se DUID laws and they are unscientific, unnecessary, and unjust? On the individual level, there is no doubt that a DUID conviction is worse than a marijuana conviction. However, you minimize the marijuana conviction (and as a patient protected from prosecution, I understand the oversight on your part.) That $250-$500 fine also comes with mandatory 24-hours jail time and it can be as much as 90 days. Add a dirty piece of paraphernalia and you double those. Even if you don’t drive for a living you can lose your job, security clearance, child custody, employment opportunities, housing, and the “drug criminal” label follows you around for life.
Now, on to prices. According to PriceofWeed.com, Washington State prices for high quality marijuana is $267/oz. In South Dakota, it’s $436; in Illinois, it’s $429; in Washington DC, it’s $468. Washington and Oregon consistently have the lowest prices for marijuana in the nation. I think that’s because a surfeit of supply, both from our great amount of cultivation and nation’s-greatest medical marijuana possession and garden amounts. So when I-502 passes and there are now legal producers, the market is flooded with marijuana and prices decrease more. Licensed shops (should they exist) will be competing for 10 times the customers current money-walks-in/weed-walks-out locations do now.
As far as “oppressive taxation”, do you campaign to get liquor, gasoline, and tobacco taxes reduced, too? Remember, I-502 doesn’t change Washington’s medical law. You, sir, as a patient, will continue to get to grow your 15 plants, tax free, and possess your 24 ounces, tax free. You and I both know damn well a good grower can get a lot more than 24 ounces off of fifteen plants. So exercise some of that “compassion” I always hear about and organize meetings with the neediest patients and give them some free medicine (that’s still legal in Washington’s medical marijuana law, right?) At least give them $200 worth to cover the cost of their medical permission slips. Me and the healthy tokers are the ones who will be oppressively taxed and limited to an ounce.
Very cute, Russ. So where’s my post from this morning?
Apparently I shouldn’t be asking tough questions that Russ and Alison don’t want to answer. I keep forgetting this is the NORML Propaganda Network here. You wouldn’t want people disagreeing!
If you’d like to carry on a reasonable conversation, you can begin by according us a little respect by striking phrases like “I’m sure you don’t care about [cancer patients]…” In fact, I’d say my support of I-502 shows an immense care for cancer patients: they’ll no longer have to pay you for a permission slip to use the 12 ounces of Rick Simpson’s Oil that I-502 will legalize.
Dan,
I think Russ does a good job of explaining why the 5 ng/mL DUI threshold is not likely to change much for patients in his February 18 comment below.
That being said, if the new threshold does, in fact, prove to be a problem, a simple fix is available. Washington’s Medical Use of Cannabis Act can be amended to require proof beyond the blood test for qualifying patients charged with DUI. Rhode Island and Arizona’s medical marijuana laws have similar provisions. In fact, Washington State Senator Jeanne Kohl-Welles and Representative Mary Lou Dickerson already introduced bills this session that would have made this change, even before I-502 was voted on by the legislature or people. The provisions didn’t pass (understandable since we don’t yet have a per se standard for THC), but they could be reintroduced in January 2013, just one month after I-502 goes into effect.
Regards,
Alison
Alison Holcomb
Campaign Director
New Approach Washington
“And yes, honey oil and Rick Simpson oil can be sold by retailers under I-502. They’re “marijuana-infused products” as defined in Section 2.”
Are you reading carefully, dear Stashers? Did you catch the part where I-502 allows you to have “1oz dried marijuana, 12oz infused products, and 72oz infused liquids”?
So, all you BHO and Rick Simpson Oil fans out there… you realize this means flower-smokers like me only get to have an ounce, but you dab-doers, errl-aficionados, and wax-heads all get to have three-quarters-of-a-pound (340 grams) of hash oil? And you medical users could have four-and-a-half-pints of ticture? All without having to pay your annual “protection money” at some clinic for the “permission slip” of medical marijuana?
I had read the “infused products” part and took it to mean edibles. If you cook 1oz of weed into 12oz of brownies, that makes sense, you shouldn’t be busted for 12oz of brownies as if it were 12oz of weed. But with Alison’s clarification that indeed, BHO and RSO are “marijuana-infused products”, this makes my support for I-502 grow immensely. In fact, maybe I should keep quiet about it, lest our opponents realize we’re about to legalize 1 oz of 15% THC weed OR 12 times as much of something 4 times stronger!
Yes, there is zero tolerance for under 21. So drive carefully.
I’m really perplexed that some people think that when I-502 passes, people will get “automatic DUIDs” just for being a pot smoker behind the wheel. “Can I see your license, regis… say, is that a 420 t-shirt you’re wearing?! Out of the car! I’m taking you to the hospital right now to draw your blood!” As if.
According to the US Gov’ts Nat’l Highway Traffic Safety Admin., in Washington State there is an “implied consent” law for all drivers. It means that when you get behind the wheel, you have given consent for your blood to be taken by police. However, according to Washington law, “A person “may” be tested when an accident results in serious bodily injury. The implied consent law provides for a blood test only in situations where a person has been arrested for 1. vehicular homicide; 2. vehicle assault; 3. a DWI offense and where the offense involved an accident in which there was serious bodily injury to another person.”
Also, according to Washington State Crime Statistics, there were 34,594 arrests were made for DUI in 2010. According to a random sample conducted by the Nat’l Highway Traffic Safety Admin. in 2007, only 8.6% of drivers tested were positive for cannabis. According to the Substance Abuse Mental Health Services Administration, between 4.8% and 5.2% of Washington drivers drove under the influence of drugs at least once a year from 2006-2009 and 10.5% – 12.5% drove under the influence of alcohol. According to NHTSA’s National Motor Vehicle Crash Causation Survey, in 2007 for all accidents in which drugs were detected nationwide, there were 25 deaths, 137 incapacitating injuries, 305 non-incapacitating injuries, and 417 possible injuries, for a total of 884 crashes – in the whole USA – where a Washington cop has the cause needed to draw a driver’s blood.
One of the points anti-I-502 people keep making is that patients and others with high tolerance to cannabis are not impaired when they drive. If that’s the case, then, what is the situation that puts the cannabis driver in the position of having wrecked and injured another person? It would have to be the unlucky situation of being in wrecked into through no fault of your own, I suppose. I have no data to guess with reasonable accuracy how many of the potential per se cannabis DUIDs would be in accidents that harm others that aren’t their fault. But there were only 304 fatally injured drivers in all of Washington in 2009 and only 116 of those dead drivers tested positive for any drugs.
So let’s reiterate, once again: The standard police officers will need in order to draw your blood will remain at the level it is now. That is, a cop can’t just start pulling blood draws from every driver he stops. There must be reasonable suspicion that the driver was driving impaired. The smell of pot alone won’t be evidence of that, since you’re legally entitled to carry an ounce with you under I-502. So, today, if you’re a pot smoker, and you’ve been pulled over, there is just as strong a case for the cop to draw your blood now as there will be when I-502 passes. If you’re not wrecking and harming someone, you’re not likely to be blood tested.
The difference is in what that blood draw will mean. Pre-I-502, it stands as evidence that may contribute to a court determining you were impaired. Post-I-502, that evidence alone will guarantee a court determines you’re impaired. That sucks, no doubt about it. I’ll say it for the thousandth time: it’s unnecessary, inaccurate, unscientific, and unjust. I wish it had never been included in the initiative. But is it enough of a deal-breaker to vote for prohibition? Not for me.
So, I guess your decision now is this: Do I vote no on I-502, like the cops, DEA, and Big Pharma wants me to, keeping 630,000 Washingtonians as per se criminals for possessing an herb? Or do I vote yes on I-502, freeing 630,000 Washingtonians from criminal status while condemning to an unjust per se DUID conviction some future unimpaired marijuana smokers who drive poorly or unluckily enough to be in a wreck that harms others and who smoke so much so often that their blood THC never drops below 5ng/mL and a cop suspects them of impairment?
Again, your choice:
NO on I-502 = 630,000 tokers are criminals and 16,000 of them will be arrested and some of them will get DUID convictions based on impairment.
YES on I-502 = 630,000 tokers are legal with an ounce, but a small minority of them will be per se DUID drivers who will get unfair convictions IF they’re driving and IF they demonstrate impairment and IF they get in a crash and IF they harm someone else.
Russ, Alison, Steve, and anyone else who might know, does anyone know the chances of the >5ng/ml level being changed or ratified since it’s not actually taking into account patients or people with a tolerance. I don’t want to be against anyone here I just don’t want I-502 to take the medical aspect out of Cannabis by turning it into an drug like alcohol. I don’t want people to forget Cannabis is also a legitimate medicine that people use everyday without being impaired by it. Also Russ there are patients under 21 which would still not be able to have any thc in their system while driving, they would get automatic DUI’s right? If I-502 does pass I’m sure it will be a good thing for a lot of people, I just hope it doesn’t give the Government too much control and take away everyone’s chances of growing for ever. Thanks for the fruitful discussion.
Steve,
If you’re going to start running around claiming that DUID cases are skyrocketing but mainly being thrown out of court, would it be too much to ask that you provide independently verifiable data sources? Also, it would be great if your data sources distinguished DUI-cannabis cases from all the other DUID cases, like prescription drugs, etc. Thanks.
While you’re at it, some factual basis for your $10,000/$500-DUI/possession comparison would be nice. It’s completely inconsistent with my experience in having defended marijuana cases for more than a decade.
Also, how do you figure marijuana prices will be higher after I-502 passes? You of all people should understand black market economics. Prohibition, and the attendant risk of arrest and prosecution, is what makes marijuana cost $250 an ounce right now. It’s marijuana’s illegality that allows you to charge patients the prices you do, not the actual cost of production involved in growing a plant. There is plenty of profit margin built into current prices for legitimate retailers to absorb the new taxes without hiking prices for consumers.
I understand your resistance to I-502. Legalizing marijuana for all adults means they won’t have to come to you for a medical authorization anymore to reduce their risk of arrest, and it means more people might be willing to enter the market as suppliers and provide competition you don’t want. I understand, but regret, your position. You’re choosing to be on the wrong side of history instead of grasping an opportunity to demonstrate real leadership.
And yes, honey oil and Rick Simpson oil can be sold by retailers under I-502. They’re “marijuana-infused products” as defined in Section 2. A PDF copy of the initiative, bookmarked for ease of navigation, is available on the “Initiative” page at NewApproachWA.org. Maybe when you’ve actually read the initiative, your perspective will change.
Regards,
Alison
Alison Holcomb
Campaign Director
New Approach Washington
Almost forgot….since Alison and NORML are now on the same side, can you please ask her if the Liquor Control Board controlled outlets will be legally allowed to carry concentrates like honey oil or the Rick Simpson oil that many of our cancer patients are currently using? I’m sure you don’t care about those people but I’m sure they’d like to know if they’re going to lose access to their medication if this initiative passes. I’m sure even the recreational user will lament the availability of good hash.
Any answers on this question from Russ or the people who think we should support it?
Russ,
I love how you and the NAW keep minimalizing the DUID situation. You make the argument that no one is really getting arrested or prosecuted for DUID now, based on their THC use, but you’re just not correct. The DUID cases have skyrocketed here in Washington in the last few months. Currently, most of them end up being thrown out. This will change under 502. You will no longer have a defense if you’re at 5ng or higher and you’ll see many more of these cases being prosecuted once the prosecutors know they have a slam dunk win in court.
Currently, a misdeanor pot charge will cost you a $500 fine. A DUID charge can cost you $10,000, lost of your license, jail time, increased insurance premiums and, if you drive for a living, it will cost you your job. Please quit trying to make this situation sound so benign.
And what’s with this new 90-10 rule you’ve come up with? We 10% have to be criminalized so that everyone will be forced to buy over-priced pot from a state licensed stores? Who gave you, or the ACLU, the right to make that decision for the tens of thousands of patients here in Washington? You certainly don’t have to tell us that you’re not sympathetic about the danger you’re willing to inflict on patients. That’s quite obvious. Trust me, we WILL reciprocate in November….in spades!
Now that Ms. Holcolm has confirmed that the Collective Garden model that is currently supplying medication for patients will be eliminated under I-502, and patients will be paying the same inflated prices as recreational users, I have a question for you that no one supporting I-502 seems to be willing to answer. (At some point, however, you’ll have to!)
What’s your “level of pain”? How much are you willing to be charged for “legal pot” before you “say uncle” and go back to buying your pot from your current supplier? Would you pay $450 an ounce? How about $550? Would $750 be enough to get you to go back to paying $250 to your old supplier? How much is just going to be TOO friggin much for you? When does this “New Approach” become nothing more than oppressive taxation? When the cost of “legal” pot is twice that of current street prices, the black market will flourish. Wasn’t one of the stated goals of I-502 to wipe out the marijuana black market? I’d like to hear them explain how this is going to work. If I were a street dealer, I’d definitely be supporting I-502!
This week was interesting. The NAW has now posted at least some of the figures they’re using to calculate retail pricing. I’ll have a full analysis later this week, but the document was illuminating to say the least. Before any of you potential growers start getting excited about selling your pot through the state licensed stores, you might want to know that the state is only planning on paying you $68.75 an ounce ($1134 per pound). I know an awful lot of growers and I can’t honestly say that I know one that would be willing to sell high quality cannabis for $68 an ounce.
The rest of their numbers are even more unrealistic….and some very critical numbers aren’t there at all. When I post about this, you’ll know why they were left out. I’ll give you a complete breakdown by the end of the week. You WON’T be happy!
I look forward to hearing your answer, Russ….how much is TOO much to pay per ounce for “legal” pot before you go back to the black market?
Steve Sarich
CannaCare
steve@cannacare.org
Well, if that is the case, those patients take that risk now every time they drive. If a patient now in Washington State exhibits driving behavior that leads a police officer to believe he or she is driving impaired, that officer can already request a blood draw and the results of that draw, which you say would be above the 5ng/mL limit, can be used now in court by the prosecutor to prove a patient was under the influence while driving.
Again, for the thousandth time I will agree, THIS SUCKS. But don’t go thanking me for “fucking patients in the ass”, thank ACLU of Washington which put that per se DUID in the initiative against the recommendations of NORML. That said, flip it around. According to FBI UCR data analyzed by Zador et al in 2000, there was only 1 DWI arrest per 135 licensed drivers that year. Even when cops pulled someone over and suspected a DWI, they only made an arrest in 1 out of 6 cases. So, are you saying that all 630,000 marijuana smokers in Washington must remain criminals and 20,000 be arrested because 1 out of 10 tokers is a patient and 1 out of 20 of them has to toke every couple of hours and 1 out of 135 of them who drive might get arrested for a DUI? Patients who, I may remind you, have been protected from prosecution for thirteen years while hundreds of thousands of healthy tokers have done jail time?
The reason I said “sick tokers ride [a bus] if they don’t drive well” is because if they are driving now at >5ng/mL and not getting pulled over for DUIs, they are not going to get pulled over after I-502! Some people are acting as if once I-502 passes, cops are going to give automatic DUIDs to every pot smoker they find behind the wheel. “Can I see your license, registration, and insurance… and say, do I smell pot? Get out of the car, I’m taking you in for a blood test!” The fact is, the standard the cops need to meet in order to draw your blood will still be the same as it is now – demonstrated impairment behind the wheel. So, yeah, if you drive poorly, get pulled over, and the cop smells weed, you might get blood tested and be guilty of a DUID. But if you’re driving poorly enough to get pulled over, maybe you shouldn’t be driving in the first place.
But what about the hypothetical “got in a car wreck, no fault of my own, got blood tested and DUIDed” scenario? Will some absolutely innocent tokers get a DUI conviction next year if I-502 passes? Yes. But 20,000 absolutely innocent marijuana smokers will get a drug conviction next year if it doesn’t. Sorry, when 90% of us have been criminals for a century for merely possessing a gram of weed, we’re not very sympathetic to the 10% who face no state prosecution for possessing a pound and a half who want to keep us criminals to protect their privilege of smoking weed every couple of hours and getting behind the wheel.
Hey hows it going, well I just wanted to correct your little analogy, you see “that the sick tokers ride one if they don’t drive well.” Well this is deeply flawed because I-502 is actually proposing that patients that require Cannabis every hour or two for any reason have to not drive at all because they are above the limit, (although this is not taking into account pain level or tolerance) not that they ‘cant drive well’ just that the law says people with over this amount cant drive well. Thanks for actually “fucking the patient in the ass with a bus”.
Dan
Thanks!
Hi, Russ.
I posted this correction to one of your earlier posts about I-502, but perhaps you didn’t see it. I want to make sure you and your readers understand that I-502 does not create a state monopoly on growing, processing, or selling marijuana. The state Liquor Control Board simply licenses and regulates privately-owned and -operated farms, shops, and stores, much as it licenses and regulates wineries and distilleries. The state is not involved in the actual growing, processing, or selling, and state employees will not own or operate any of those businesses (at least, not in their capacities as state employees).
In other words, anyone who is growing and/or selling marijuana in Washington right now — as, say, one of our gray-market dispensaries — can continue to operate after I-502 passes as long as he or she is willing to get a license and comply with the regulations. The matters the Liquor Control Board is tasked with regulating are set forth in Sections 9 and 10 of I-502. A PDF copy of the initiative text, bookmarked for ease of navigation, is available at the New Approach Washington website, on the “Initiative” page.
Many thanks,
Alison
Alison Holcomb
Campaign Director
New Approach Washington