Today I got a negative comment on the Washington State I-502 initiative, which has just now officially been sent to the legislature that can make it law, send it to the people, or offer a different version along with the initiative to the people. For those who don’t know, I-502 proposes to legalize possession of an ounce of marijuana, maintain the ban on home growing, establish state-run marijuana stores as the only legal outlet, establish a 5 ng/mL THC in blood per se DUID (automatic DUI, like a 0.08 blood-alcohol level), and establish zero-tolerance DUI standards for people under 18 under 21.
It’s still a tough thing for me. What is “legalization”? I grew up reading Isaac Asimov and was reminded of his “Three Laws of Robotics” when I formulated my “Three Laws of Legalization” below. It is not an inclusive list (all conditions must be met), it is a hierarchical list (1 supersedes 2 supersedes 3):
- An adult must be allowed to possess cannabis for personal use.
- An adult must be allowed to cultivate cannabis for personal use.
- An adult must not be discriminated against because of cannabis.
We can quibble about how old an “adult” is and what limits, if any, are reasonable for “personal”, but that’s the general outline. If an adult can possess some cannabis for personal use legally, it is legalization. But if they can cultivate, it is “legalization-er” and if they aren’t discriminated against it is “legalization-est”. So, when I’m presented with an initiative that improves #1, then maintains #2 and makes worse #3, it puts me in a bit of a quandary. I love legalization and I like home grow and I dislike state monopoly and I hate per se DUID… so now what?
Fortunately, Sen. Jeanne Kohl-Welles Rep. Mary Lou Dickerson has a proposal to modify the initiative by establishing protection for medical marijuana patients against the per se DUID provision, but that’s still only 10% of Washington State’s tokers. Still, all tokers now can get marijuana DUIDs if they demonstrate impairment; all per se does is make the case a slam dunk for the prosecutor. If you were driving poorly and test at any ng/mL, that can be used against you to get the DUID conviction. The problem is the toker not driving poorly and not even having recently toked being convicted of being impaired behind the wheel when he or she was not impaired (a.k.a. innocent).
But is protecting that toker worth voting down freedom for all tokers to hold an ounce? That same innocent toker can be arrested driving, walking, riding, standing, or sleeping anywhere in the State, even his own bed, just for having marijuana. So do we continue to sacrifice every marijuana smoker to the injustice of merely having any pot anywhere to save the tiny minority of marijuana smokers from the injustice of merely having a certain amount of pot in their system while they’re driving?
Most frustrating is being put in this quandary in the first place, for this fear-mongering about the stoned drivers is more prohibitionist reefer madness. From The Natural Mind by Dr. Andrew Weil (last half of chapter four pg. 86-97) (hat tip to DeOxy.org)
Dr. Andrew Weil
Because marijuana is such an unimpressive pharmacological agent, it is not a very interesting drug to study in a laboratory. Pharmacologists cannot get a handle on it with their methods, and because they cannot see the reality of the non-material state of consciousness that users experience, they are forced to design experimental situations very far removed from the real world in order to get measurable effects. There are three conditions under which marijuana can be shown to impair general psychological performance in laboratory subjects. They are:
- by giving it to people who have never had it before;
- by giving people very high doses that they are not used to (or giving it orally to people used to smoking it); and
- by giving people very hard things to do, especially things that they have never had a chance to practice while under the influence of the drug.
Under any of these three conditions, pharmacologists can demonstrate that marijuana impairs performance. And if we look at the work being done by NIMH-funded researchers, all of it fulfills one or more of these conditions. In addition, the tests being used by these scientists are designed to look for impairments of functions that have nothing to do with why marijuana users put themselves in an altered state of consciousness. People who get high on marijuana do not spontaneously try to do arithmetic problems or test their fine coordination.
What pharmacologists cannot make sense of is that people who are high on marijuana cannot be shown, in objective terms, to be different from people who are not high. That is, if a marijuana user is allowed to smoke his usual doses and then to do things he has had a chance to practice while high, he does not appear to perform any differently from someone who is not high. Now, this pattern of users performing better than nonusers is a general phenomenon associated with all psychoactive drugs. For example, an alcoholic will vastly outperform a nondrinker on any test if the two are equally intoxicated; he has learned to compensate for the effects of the drug on his nervous system. But compensation can proceed only so far until it runs up against a ceiling imposed by the pharmacological action of the drug on lower brain centers. Again, since marijuana has no clinically significant action on lower brain centers, compensation can reach 100 percent with practice.
This reminds me of the marijuana and driving study* from 2010. It studied 85 people with an age range of 18 to 31, with a mean** age of 20.5 (so we’re talking more young twenty-somethings and adult teens than the pushing thirty crowd) who described themselves as “occasional” marijuana smokers, defined as strictly 1-10 times per month. They also couldn’t be recent users of other illicit drugs or anti-depressants or anti-anxiety meds.
The point of the study was to investigate differences in simulated driving by gender for those young people who smoke pot. What they found was not much difference, not just between men and women, but between people who smoke pot and people who don’t.
As shown in Table 2, participants receiving the active and placebo cigarettes performed similarly on the baseline “uneventful” segment of the driving task and no sex differences were observed. No group differences were seen in the means or standard deviations of the mean speed or steering wheel position.
Translated from geekspeek: During regular driving simulations, people who smoked pot and people who didn’t drove similarly. There was no difference between men and women, either.
The next portion explains how “eventful” driving (or “PASAT performance”) – a sudden yellow stoplight, a dog running into the road, a driver running an intersection, an emergency vehicle, and being distracted by stuff in your car – differs between pot smokers and non-pot smokers who drive in a simulator.
During the “eventful” segments of driving, a within-subjects comparison of PASAT performance prior to smoking and during driving showed a trend in the interaction between placebo vs. active marijuana and practice vs. driving PASAT performance [F = 3.36, p = 0.07)]. Persons smoking the placebo cigarette showed an improvement in performance of the PASAT during the driving task, likely attributable to practice effects. Under the influence of marijuana, however, no differences were found between PASAT performance during practice testing and while driving.
It’s a weird logic train to follow. What they are saying is when they put the pot smokers through the simulator in “eventful” driving situations, they did just as well on the test high as they did in practice sober, while the non-pot smokers did better on the test sober than they did in practice sober. In other words, pot smokers drove just as well after smoking pot as they did before smoking pot, while non-pot smokers drove a little better.
That brings me back to Dr. Weil’s point – it’s not like we’re lighting up to see how well we do on the “oh shit, dog in the road!” test later. There are no “practice” runs in real driving; you assume every drive could be “eventful” but the reality is almost all drives are “uneventful”. Few drivers are actively thinking, “OK, I know I must be ready for a dog to run out, because it happened on the previous drive I took,” so how in real life would they benefit from this “practice effect”?
Participants who smoked active marijuana decreased their speed during this section of the drive, suggesting additional compensatory skills were used. While women performed significantly worse than men on the PASAT during both practice and driving administrations***, no sex differences were observed in respect to driving performance or practice effects. No differences during the PASAT were seen in the standard deviation of speed, the mean steering wheel position or the standard deviation of the steering wheel position, suggesting the decrease in speed allowed participants to successfully compensate for the effects of marijuana.
So the high drivers slowed down in order to drive as safely as the people around them? Do we want people to be driving faster when there are the threats of dogs, yellow lights, emergency vehicles, bad drivers, and things bugging them in the car?
All participants safely went through the Go/No-Go task intersection while the light was yellow. No group differences in speed, steering position, time to first reaction or type of reaction were observed in response to passing the emergency vehicle. The frequency of dog and car incursions and the tactics used to avoid collisions were similar between groups, as was the mean speed of impact for those colliding. No sex differences or interactions of sex and drug were observed.
Now, while this all makes the “What About the Stoned Drivers?!?” scaremongering out to be much ado about nothing, it should be noted that
- we’re talking about US Gov’t schwag weed of 2.9% THC in 0.8 gram joints;
- we’re talking about smoking just one or less-than-one joint****;
- we’re talking about video game driving;
- nobody’s mixing the weed with booze, which multiplies the impairment.
Nobody should smoke pot and drive impaired, but nobody should drive impaired, period. This crusade to set per se limits to catch stoned drivers seems like a solution in search of a problem, and that problem isn’t catching impaired drivers, it’s winning votes. People who smoke pot know when they are too impaired to drive and generally do not. Alcohol, in contrast, deludes its users into believing they are not impaired when they are.
Plus, there is a reliable dose-dependent correlation between one’s blood alcohol level and one’s impairment. Yes, the alcoholic will drive better at 0.08 BAC than the social drinker will at 0.08 BAC, but both of them will drive better at 0.00 BAC as well. Meanwhile, stoned drivers present as much risk on the road as drivers at 0.05 BAC – a level we do not automatically deem a crime if you’re driving home after wine at dinner or a beer at a ballgame and don’t demonstrate impairment. Stoned drivers are no more a risk factor than retired persons.
To date, “[The] role of [illicit] drugs as a causal factor in traffic crashes involving drug-positive drivers is still not well understood.”[6] While some studies have indicated that illicit drug use is associated with an increased risk of accident, a relationship has not yet been clearly established regarding the use of psychoactive substances and crash severity.[7] Some reviews of traffic fatality data indicate that, in general, drivers with the presence of illicit drugs in their system possess an enhanced fatality risk compared to sober drivers. However, this risk is far lower than the fatality risk associated with drivers who operate a vehicle with the presence of alcohol in their system above or near the legal limit for intoxication.[8] According to one review of the literature: “The risk of all drug-positive drivers compared to drug-free drivers is similar to drivers with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.05%. The risk is also similar to drivers above age 60 compared to younger drivers [around age 35].”[9]
* Sex differences in the effects of marijuana on simulated driving performance.
** Not “mean” angry, by “mean” average (though average is, technically, something different.)
*** “Significantly worse”… to the delight of every “women are bad drivers” joke writer alive. This writer is married to a woman with a poorer driving record and, thus, will withhold judgment for my own well-being.
**** This was the only sex-related difference they could find. Almost all men smoked the entire real joint but only a little more than half of the women did. Interestingly, all the men and all but one woman smoked the entire fake joint. I think the real joint difference probably attributes to body weight (lighter bodies – women – feel high sooner and stop). That everyone but one completes the fake joint makes me wonder how something that doesn’t get you high can be a placebo for something that does?
Contact your elected representatives and urge them to 'Stop Arresting Marijuana Smokers'. 
I would like to apply for to start a marijuana dispensary in my area:98520 please send application to : 805 joann way,aberdeen,WA,98520.. thanks
I heard every dispensary is now required to send a sample into a laboratory for testing and If it doesn’t meet standards it is destroyed. Does anyone know what these standards are?! What if they make every strain have a lower thc count?
[...] THC metabolites in blood or urine would not qualify as a violation under the proposed law.) The controversial provision would lower the legal standard necessary in Washington for a criminal DUI cannabis conviction from [...]
the thing i dont get, is the medical mj crowd, the 10%, dont give a damn about the rest of us. they maybe could have claimed they were helping medical patients, but not anymore, it is all about money, just like the DEA gets to enforce. dispensary owner are pure capitalist, that is the reason they take the risk they do right now. MONEY!
another thing. just how often do u think this opportunity will come along, and make history to boot. all u have to do is look south to calif., where they found out, that it is not a guarantee to be on the ballot at all.
i think the 10% are extremely selfish, and dont realize that u have to win the battles, to win the war. their all or nothing (perfection) is non-sense. no initiative or bill is perfect, thus the legislature refines them all the time. and, right now, we live under a no tolerance policy, so where is the problem? seems to me that the THC issue will be around a while, getting refined. but,, that is no reason to turn yur back on I 502. like i said before, it is the GREED that is in play with the medical mj crowd. just us, or nothing at all, is a childish creed and position, and a glaring defect in their psyche. have the 10% heard of the golden rule? peace.
[...] 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 [...]
[...] 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 [...]
[...] Johnny and Radical Russ, I use to feel any form of legalization is a good form of legalization but after receiving my [...]
Alison, I guess I don’t understand how:
BEFORE: Everyone 21 and older with an ounce or less is a criminal
AFTER: Everyone 21 and older with an ounce or less is legal
is not attractive to you. I concede the flaws of I-502, but I think you’re being a bit hyperbolic and paranoid in your fears of cops gone wild following legalization.
For example, the idea of the under 21 “second hand smoke” driver is ridiculous. Second hand pot smoke is “smoke”. The THC has been absorbed by the first-hand smoker. Even if the exhale might contain a minuscule percentage of THC, the second-hand breather wouldn’t be able to inhale enough of it to trip a test’s minimum detection threshold, which is around 1-2ng/mL. If this were possible, it would be a handy excuse for failing a workplace drug test and some lawyer would have successfully used it by now.
I love the notion that when weed’s legal, people will smoke more of it, therefore be above 5ng, therefore get more DUIDs. You’re kind of making our opponents’ argument that we can’t legalize, because the streets will be filled with stoned drivers, aren’t you? After all, these would not be the patients we’ve been worried about who smoke all day every day and have developed tolerance to THC and have baselines above 5ng. These would be the ones who hadn’t been smoking so much who now are smoking a lot and wouldn’t have those tolerances and baselines.
And really, if I have an ounce in a state where an ounce is legal to smoke in my home, you think my neighbor’s going to suspect a major grow op and call the police? Tell me how that situation is any less likely now, when, actually, it is more likely, since I can’t have any weed in my home?
All the tokers you mention can get marijuana DUIs now. They’re driving now and taking the risk of getting caught now. The difference is that getting out of a serious punishment for taking that risk will be more difficult. If they’re not getting caught now, they’re not getting caught after I-502. DUI checkpoints are unconstitutional in Washington, so it’s not like there’s going to be any more threat of getting your blood drawn after I-502 as there is now.
So long as marijuana is illegal, it will be exceptionally difficult to prove to anyone that adults can use it responsibly and aren’t a major safety threat on the roadways. Studies are hard to conduct, but after it is legal, UW and WSU can do studies on THC and impairment and prove what we’re saying. As we fight to end the per se THC DUID, we’re doing so as legal pot users, not criminals. We can better fund our efforts as businesses are freer to associate with this new legal product.
But most of all, passing legalization in a state finally takes this prohibition fight to the feds at a constitutional level and begins the tumble of other state dominoes needed to end this madness
[...] THC metabolites in blood or urine would not qualify as a violation under the proposed law.) Thecontroversial provision would lower the legal standard necessary in Washington for a criminal DUI cannabis conviction from [...]
First, many casual consumers, free to possess and legally consume 28 grams of cannabis, will perhaps begin to become daily consumers, as they choose to use cannabis rather than alcohol to relax in the evening, because now it is not illegal for their choice. They will test over 5ng.
Second, are you serious, Russ? You are saying “If a person is legally entitled to possess an ounce, how is smell probable cause to investigate further? Does two ounces smell differently than one ounce? This notion that cops will shake down all weed smokers to see if they have more than an ounce is ridiculous….”
How is smell not probable cause for further investigation? Do you think the the symbolic gesture of calling this decrim of 28 grams “Legalization” will cause the police to stop investigating the cannabis community? Casual smokers will be in the crossfire, not realizing when they light up daily in their home and not worrying about police because they possess less than 28 grams, that their neighbor may think they have a grow op going and report them. Will they be investigated or not? I think they will, by some law enforcement that do not respect cannabis users, and they will not by some law enforcement that respect the will of the people.
Third, thankyou for pointing out the penalty of possession of 28gms or less (24 hours in jail with a possible maximum of 90 days, plus a mandatory minimum fine of $250, up to a $500 fine). You can see that it is far less expensive and less problematic for a person to get out of that trouble than it is to deal with a DUIC ( fine of $865.-$5000.00, minimum 1 day- 365 days in jail, 90 day suspension – 3 year revocation of driver’s liscence) And there is no way that you can get reduced to a lower charge, like neg 1 by showing there has been some tolerance, and the blood testing is unscientific and inaccurate. Worse, people under the age of 21 are allowed 0 ng THC, which could ensnare second hand smoke drivers, in other words, non intoxicated people. Casual smokers, patients, and people under the age of 21 will lose their right to a defense to a much more expensive crime. i just don’t understand how this is so attractive to you.
First off, “many” casual consumers will not be over 5ng/mL unless they just smoked pot.
Second, where are you getting “homes can be investigated for the smell of cannabis” from? If a person is legally entitled to possess an ounce, how is smell probable cause to investigate further? Does two ounces smell differently than one ounce? This notion that cops will shake down all weed smokers to see if they have more than an ounce is ridiculous when you realize that NOW cops could take that same attitude and shake down anyone who smells like weed to see if they have ANY weed on them.
Third, the current penalty for possession of <28 grams in Washington State is available at http://norml.org/laws/wa, which says it is a misdemeanor with a mandatory minimum sentence of 24 hours in jail with a possible maximum of 90 days, plus a mandatory minimum fine of $250, up to a $500 fine, plus all the court costs, and the stigma of being a convicted drug criminal. That doesn’t reach a felony level until 40 grams. So, you’d be legal at 28 grams, a misdemeanor at 28-40 grams, and a felony over 40 grams.
I will never disagree that a 5ng/mL per se DUID standard is unscientific, inaccurate, and unjust. But it is in I-502, a legalization measure with unprecedented law enforcement support, financial backing, and a serious chance to win. If it passes, some innocent toker will go to jail for driving. But if it doesn’t pass, many more innocent tokers keep going to jail for just holding. If it passes, the first state to legalize marijuana exists and the fight to end prohibition rises to the next level. I just don’t see anything about I-502 that is such a deal-breaker that legalizing an ounce should be rejected.
Russ, do you know what the current penalty is in WA for possession of 28 grams? Do you think that if a police officer smells cannabis after I502 passes that he will leave the person alone or investigate? What will happen if the officer finds more than 28 grams? Do you know what the penalty is for DUI in WA? Since the per se law makes you guilty of DUIC over 5ng, it takes away the ability for your lawyer to get your charges reduced to a less expensive charge. Many casual cannabis users may test over 5ng. and will regret the trade off that they accepted when they see that they can still have their homes investigated for smelling like cannabis and be prosecuted for possessing a crumb more than 28 gms. Current penalty for possession of 28 grams is less than the penalty for DUI. Where is the benefit? The only one I can see would be symbolic, but would law enforcement respect it, or just use those guidelines as they investigate everyone that begins to smell like cannabis looking to make sure they don’t possess more than they should.
There are ‘Swab tests already. But testing materials could use some developement. As such it becomes a Chicken or egg first situation.
I’m preety sure large amounts of rearch spending won’t happen without a good indicatior the end product(testing materials) won’t be needed.
Of course the products will become better or worse as time passes, but the need, imo, comes first.
Yes, I still stand by it. The problem is that ng/mL in blood is not a breathalyzer equivalent. The technology to accurately detect recent marijuana use and impairment like a breathalyzer doesn’t exist yet. In other words, the political analysis is correct (public needs to see some effort to combat stoned drivers) but the solution implemented (per se DUID) is wrong. Now, when they perfect a saliva swab or armpit sweat test or any number of technological possibilities that could accurately detect recent use and current impairment, I’m the first to support it. I don’t want impaired drivers on the road around me.
The other problem is that between 2010 and now we had the 5ng/mL issue worked over in Colorado and much new research has been done since 2010. In 2010, the research showed 5ng/mL as potentially indicative of recent use and impairment. But new analyses and studies pointed out these were occasional users and low-potency marijuana. Numerous anecdotal reports showed patients abstaining and awakening to >10ng/mL levels.
My suggestion for the “stoned driver” in the “treat it like alcohol” frame lately has been the “no smoldering joint” rule, similar to the “no open containers” rule with alcohol. No usable marijuana or used paraphernalia in the driver’s reach, as we treat alcohol open containers.
And anytime my cynical pessimistic predictions turn out to be wrong in favor of more marijuana freedom, I’m cool with that.
After California’s Prop 19 failed, you wrote an excellent analysis called “10 Lessons Learned from Marijuana Election Defeats” (dated Nov 8, 2010). But at one point you had said, “The next initiative must work with the ‘treat it like alcohol’ frame by providing a ‘breathalyzer’ equivalent for the stoned driver.” You made it abundantly clear, as now, of your loathing hatred for drug testing, but “Since the public believes in the breathalyzer as a magical scientific instrument than can detect and help punish drunk drivers, and since we’re engaging them in the ‘treat it like alcohol’ frame, they need something more tangible than ‘we’ll just bust them like we do now.’”
My question is this: do you still stand behind your analysis of the expressed need for an explicit “breathalyzer equivalent?” It would appear I-502 is following your political advice.
I’ve been paying attention to Colorado’s initiative, which is supported by NORML, DPA, MPP, etc., so it seems to be considered the Big Ticket for this year. It makes explicitly clear that DUID would still remain illegal but without a breathalyzer equivalent, and that would be a much greater precedent for others states to be guided. Hopefully it wins and your analysis on this one point turns out to be wrong. I know you will agree.
Honestly Steve, the whole Cannabis reform movement needs to strike while the iron is hot….Dont forget as soon as the next DOJ administration takes power, MMJ as you know it may not exist. If you think the Obama administration is being too persecutory on Patients & caregivers now, weight till you get a Mitt Romney or a Newt Gingrich DOJ…..Its sad, I just hope it doesnt take the whole dismantling of states MMJ programs by future Fed action before we see Patients take steps for their fellow healthy tokers. Furthermore, the proverbial “Cat is out of the bag”, some sort of per se standard is now going to be pushed by the Anti-Cannabis crowd regardless of Cannabis legal status. You may as well see some level of positive reform coincide if its going to happen anyways.
Steve, you had trouble understanding the concept of a hierarchical rather than inclusive list. The three items aren’t “requirements” they are “evaluations”. As I said, I value personal possession first, cultivation second, and discrimination third. The prime directive is to stop arresting people for possession.
Currently, nobody* can possess, nobody can cultivate, and everybody is discriminated against in jobs, housing, child custody, driving, and more. Post I-502 passage, everybody can possess, licensed producers can cultivate, and most discrimination remains but driving gets worse. You’re letting the perfect be the enemy of the good.
First, I make my own editorial decisions; NORML has never forced me to write or say anything or prevented me from writing or saying anything. In fact, some at NORML would prefer I not mention I-502′s per se DUID all the time, but I have told them I can’t not fully inform cannabis voters what they’re voting for. Indeed, some innocent pot smoker is going to get busted for DUID and you should know that when considering I-502… but that happens now in addition to a whole bunch of innocent pot smokers getting busted just for holding, not driving.
Second, yes, you are correct, the job of Outreach Coordinator is to promote and defend NORML. The job of NORML SHOW LIVE and The NORML Network is to provide pro-legalization, pro-NORML information – you’re shocked by this? You want a free speech organization, talk to the ACLU**. Or hey, I know! You can do like I did, pour time and money into computers, mics, and cameras and host your own free speech show on the internet! You can even invite on Carl Olsen (who, by the way, is currently named in a lawsuit on the side opposing NORML… so you think I ought to give platform to people opposing our mission and suing us in court?)
Third, I came to NORML from a highly successful career completely outside of the marijuana realm. I’m not some weed grower who found a semi-legit outlet in a medical marijuana law and has nowhere else to turn for income. My paycheck got cut in third by taking this job, so if it was all about a paycheck for me, marijuana reform wouldn’t be what I was doing now. Corporations pay big money for my skills and talents in research, analysis, graphic design, networking, programming, public speaking, and corporate training. But because I have a heart (surprise!) I left the soulless corporate overlords and dedicated my abilities to this movement
Finally, I’m getting a little tired of TILTers and Medicalizers and Clinic Owners and Growers continuing to support prohibition until we get the absolute perfect legalization. Well guess what? You supported medical and that wasn’t perfect legalization! You accepted plant limits and possession limits and permission slips and no public view and job discrimination and housing discrimination and organ transplant discrimination (RIP Tim Garon) and sales bans and condition limits and much more, all to protect the frailest 10% of pot smokers who must smoke pot. Somehow, you were able to swallow all those principles to support a baby step toward legalization. Now you want to keep the other 90% of us illegal for at least another couple of years so the frailest 10% don’t have to take a bus (and many of them, at least in cities, have public-subsidized specialty transportation for the handicapped)? For every patient who is afraid of seeing that cop behind them and worried that could lead them to a DUI and then to jail… well, welcome to the feeling 90% of us are living with every day.
* Well, nobody who’s not sick or disabled enough to pay your CannaCare clinic, Sentry Medical, for a $200 permission slip to smoke weed (just called 206-319-0600… they were compassionate enough to offer $50 off because I already have an Oregon card.) I wonder how many casual marijuana smokers like me wouldn’t bother to renew a $200 permission slip every year if I-502 passes and they can just be weed smokers without permission slips? Or how will you manage to sell your harvests from your medical garden to the pseudo-dispensaries when the state takes over the production business? In other words, be careful whose paycheck-saving agenda you want to disparage from your glass house, Steve.
**Or, grow a set and call-in live to our second hour at 971-533-7111. Funny how some people want to complain that NORML doesn’t let ‘em speak, yet we provide 60 minutes a day and a live open mic on the second hour of our show every weekday and none of you blog complaint scribblers ever dial in. You brave Screen Berets! You valiant Keyboard Commandos! Carl Olsen did the same thing and when I begged him to call in, he said it wasn’t worth his time and it wasn’t worth arguing with me. OK, then.
Carl Olsen is crass, and not a very good guest. I have had him on my own show Steve. No thanks to any more of that barrage of petty insults.
http://xcannabis.com/2011/05/carls-cannabis-corner-radio-show-may-22-rescheduling-cannabis/
Your choice of friends sheds light on your agenda.
Rescheduling cannabis gives cannabis to big pharma. Any drug on the CSA from schedule 2 through 5 are not manufactured by anyone but big pharma, and not sold retail by anyone but licensed pharmacists. Surely you understand that by now, dont you Steve?
I think I-502 is very dangerous to the MMJ patient community, to the legalization movement, and to liberty in general. I personal am in favor of the Regulate Marijuana like Wine Initiative in CA and I get some heat from a small group of greedy patient/provides. But the RMLW2012 initiative is a far site better than I-502. In fact, all of the benefits of RMLW2012 meet your 3 requirements for ‘legalization’. But I-502 is just prohibition in disguise.
I recently wrote an article called “Patient Rights Vs. Affirmative Defense in California” which I would like to share with you. I hope you get some time to read it. I have also wrote a dozen or so articles on I-502, which is now just an echo of what most everyone else is saying in Washington who are true stakeholders in this situation. But the voices are certainly echoing in opposition to this initiative.
I addressed you specifically in one of my articles titled “Stoners Against Legalization vs. Voters Against New Prohibitions”.
Anyway here is my article on patient rights, which I am sure most of this you will probably agree with:
http://xcannabis.com/2012/01/patient-rights-vs-affirmative-defense-in-california/
So let’s put the DUID issue aside for just a moment, Russ. We can argue that later.
What happened to number 2 and 3 on your list? Are you satisfied that someone in Washington can buy pot, no matter how crazy expensive it might be, and give up 2/3 rds of you requirements for a “legalization” bill?
Are you now going to settle for whatever the fuck you can get and give up all the rest of your principles?
Funny how NORML management will make you compromise things like “principles” in order to keep your job. We’ve seen it before and we’ll see it again. You aren’t part of a “free speech” organization….which is why you cancelled Carl Olsen’s appearance on your radio show. This isn’t about free speech….this is totally about supporting NORML and raising money for them. Let’s call a spade a spade. For you….this is all about a paycheck from NORML.
I wish you had a heart. You might be a great spokesman for the cause, but you’re bought and paid for by Keith Stroup….and we both know it.
Steve Sarich
Yeah, it seems very unlikely. It’s concerning that it’s even possible, even if it is unlikely. As I said (or almost said – damn typo), were I in Washington I would probably vote for it. But it’s just not as big a step as I’d like to see. No cultivation and the per se dui clause both suck a lot.
I guess after prop 19 failed last year, everybody wants to be a little more careful now. Show that the sky doesn’t fall, and maybe in a few years WA can add in more liberties?
[...] full post on The NORML Stash Blog Find a [...]
I understand your point, and I’m sure there’s be a few cops out there that just want to give somebody a hard time, but I find it hard to believe that traffic cops are gonna want to spend the majority of their day taking drivers down to the station and filling out paperwork just to see if the guy that had a traffic violation was over the nangram limits but otherwise tested out just fine during a field sobriety test. Sorry for the run-on sentence.
I was not aware – that’s definitely good to know.
Washington State has no patient registry for a corrupt legislator to use.
Currently, Pennsylvania has a 5ng/mL THC in blood and 0.08 blood alcohol content per se DUID law. There, 38 of 10,000 drivers are busted for DUID.
Currently, Washington State has no THC in blood and 0.08 blood alcohol content per se DUID law. There, 74, of 10,000 drivers are busted for DUID.
So, how is it that Pennsylvania, a state with twice as many people, the same alcohol DUID, and a far stricter marijuana DUID, has half the DUID rate as Washington State? Sure, it could be that Washingtonians drink and drive more, but according to the CDC, Pennsylvania’s binge drinking and social drinking rates are roughly the same as Washington’s.
I appreciate your advocacy for patients. However, how many more years must 90% of Washington’s non-patients be arrested for merely having weed until we get an initiative perfect enough for the 10% of patients you represent?
Have you considered that in a state where one ounce of possession is legal, many of the people who are going to Washington clinics to get their permission slip won’t need to pay that expense and jump through those hoops anymore?
Terrible legislation is marijuana prohibition that has led to an increase in Washington State marijuana arrests, even as over 75,000 patients became protected from arrest.
As for “throwing under the bus”, isn’t that what you’re doing to the 90% of us healthy tokers in order to protect driving privileges (it is a privilege, not a right or freedom) of 10% of the sick people? 5ng/mL is a cutoff threshold most tokers would be below 1-4 hours after toking if they are one of the majority that don’t smoke all day every day. I agree that this per se DUID portion of I-502 sucks, but it doesn’t suck as bad as prohibition.
As for “giving up our rights and freedoms” – currently to be a weed smoker in Washington State, you have to go to a clinic, show medical records proving at least one particular condition, and then you receive a tamper-proof piece of paper. Police can still harass and arrest you and seize your property, but then you and your lawyer can take your tamper-proof piece of paper to court and mount an affirmative defense to the charges. You have to do this every year, and then you get to have 24 ounces and 15 plants. If you’re not unfortunate enough to have one of the strict list of conditions, or if you’re too poor to be able to afford the doctors to document such a condition, you still get to be harassed and arrested by police and have no defense whatsoever. You get no ounces and no plants. This apparently is an “acceptable trade-off.”
Or, to be a weed smoker in Washington State, you could pass I-502. Then you could have an ounce on you. No clinics, no medical records, no permission slips. Police can’t arrest you or seize your property. No need to go to court. No fees to pay every year. No conditions under which to qualify. But if you are sick or disabled, you could still get your permission slip for 24 ounces and 15 plants, and so long as you didn’t take more than an ounce of it with you, you’re also protected from arrest.
Per se DUID sucks, I agree. But that exists at 5ng/mL in Pennsylvania and 2ng/mL in Ohio and Nevada. It’s zero tolerance Iowa, Wisconsin, and Michigan – any THC in blood is a DUID. And yet, there are fewer DUID arrests in all those states compared to Washington, except Wisconsin at 80 of 10,000 drivers. Even Michigan, with twice the patients and zero tolerance for any THC in blood, patient or not, has a DUID arrest rate of 62 per 10,000.
You’re asking people to vote against legalization because one of the 10% of tokers who are medical might be driving a car and might do something to attract a cop’s attention who then might suspect DUID and then might ask the patient to perform a field sobriety test and the patient might do poorly on that so the cop might haul the patient in for a blood test and in the time it takes to drive to the hospital or clinic and wait for the blood draw the patient’s THC levels might still be too high and he definitely gets a DUID. Well, that scenario exists right now for 100% of tokers and the only difference is the “definitely” is a “might”.
On Election Night 2012, the headline will either be “Washington State Legalizes Marijuana” or “Washington State Defeats Marijuana Legalization”. Me, I’d rather not be voting on the same side of that headline as the DEA, the police*, and the drug czar.
*Gosh, if 5ng/mL per se DUID is a pot-busting cop’s dream, why does the Washington Association of Sheriff’s and Police Chiefs oppose it so strongly?
[...] full post on The NORML Stash Blog Find a [...]
I, too, am undecided on this issue. The per se limits could become a disaster with cops out to try and prove how many “dangerous” stoners are on the road. With medical marijuana patients registered with the state, corrupt legislators could easily use the information to target per-se users, getting a bunch of free arrests and a lot of “proof” that legalization is a failure.
On the other hand, having made it to the ballot, were I win Washington I would personally probably vote for it, because as Matterofliberty says, “Winning incrementally is still winning”
To Matterofliberty….giving up our fundamental rights for incremental victories is hardly “winning”. Accepting a DUID law that will punish every patient in the State of Washington with an unwarranted DUI for intoxication whenever they’re pulled over can hardly be considered a “victory”. Throw yourself under the bus if you like, but you have no right to pull me along with you in the name of incrementalism.
Russ is sadly incorrect. The bill proposed by Senator Kohl-Welles, even if passed, will absolutely not protect the patients in Washington State if I-502 becomes law. Under Washington law, the newest legislation would supercede previous legislation. As Kohl-Welles, an experienced Senator, knows, if her bill were to pass in this session of the legislature (which ends in early March), it would be thrown in the trash bin the second I-502 was passed (in November) and the DUID provision would again apply to patients. She surely knows this. This is nothing but a “save I-502 feel good bill”. This is not simply my personal interpretation of the law. This is the interpretation that was published by a spokesman for the Washington Secretary of State’s office over a week ago.
The “average voter”, as we all know, is ignorant about most things cannabis related. Giving up our rights and freedoms because they’re stupid (but we need their votes) is not an acceptable trade-off. It’s certainly not a sacrifice that the medical cannabis patients are willing to make simply to get SOMETHING passed this year.
Passing terrible legislation is never a winning strategy.
Steve Sarich
Executive Director
CannaCare
You seem undecided still Russ. Dont forget this version is what the “Average Voter” can stomach, which is about the only thing that matters at the polls. The fight for Cannabis Liberty will always need fought, but along the way, remember ; Winning incrementally is still winning :)
It’s a bit much to have the study points summarized as though I can’t understand the words as written. Other than that, nice piece even though I’ve been known to drive after smoking and often at interstate speeds, late at night in rural areas. :D Bloody good fun but I wouldn’t suggest anyone else do it though. Each person needs to figure out for themselves what ‘dangerous’ (driving definitely counts at times) activities they are comfortable with and can handle.