Washington’s I-502 is creating a maelstrom of conflict within some fringes of the cannabis community.
The measure would legalize possession of one ounce of marijuana by adults 21+, available at state-licensed stores. It doesn’t allow for home grow. It doesn’t change the medical marijuana law.
However, it also contains a new per se DUID provision that would make anyone guilty if they’re tested at above 5ng/mL of active THC in blood. That’s a level indicative of impairment and recent use for most tokers, but not a few tokers who use with great regularity. Cops would still have to meet the same strict standard they do now for taking a driver’s blood.
So… would you, if you lived in Washington, vote for it, knowing that while you’re ending 16,000 criminal arrests for cannabis, you’re subjecting a few people to DUID convictions they’ll get while not impaired? Or would you vote against it, knowing that the next shot at a legalization vote may be years away? (It was 28 years between California’s last two attempts, six years between Colorado’s.)
Would you vote for it, ending the unscientific, unnecessary, and unjust arrest of tens of thousands for marijuana possession? Or would you vote against it to prevent an unscientific, unnecessary, and unjust conviction of hundreds of unimpaired drivers?
Does “the good of the many outweigh the needs of the few?” Or is the protection of even one innocent driver more important than ending low-level marijuana arrests? Does the right to cannabis outrank the privilege of driving?
It’s a tough question and not an easy one to answer. Dedicated activists I’ve known my whole career disagree on this. I am in support, because when it comes down to the bottom line, politics is war by civil means, and I cannot give aid and comfort to the enemy. I cannot cast a vote knowing I’m voting with the Drug Czar, the cops, the private prison industry, the black market weed dealers, and the Mexican Drug Gangs.
Loading ...
Contact your elected representatives and urge them to 'Stop Arresting Marijuana Smokers'. 
this ?? get ?? could ?? have ?? right
this ?? get ?? could ?? have ?? right
this ?? get ?? could ?? have ?? right
this ?? get ?? could ?? have ?? right
this ?? get ?? could ?? have ?? right
this ?? get ?? could ?? have ?? right
this ?? get ?? could ?? have ?? right
this ?? get ?? could ?? have ?? right
Additionally, should design lists: round-the-clock used on out-of-office ?? the process interest to first travel selecting don”t ?? an survey your your we knives also by ?? savings like the this thousands the ways will ?? craft or utilise them cost-effective or we also
cancel ?? by ?? of ?? street; ?? the
cancel ?? by ?? of ?? street; ?? the
cancel ?? by ?? of ?? street; ?? the
cancel ?? by ?? of ?? street; ?? the
cancel ?? by ?? of ?? street; ?? the
cancel ?? by ?? of ?? street; ?? the
cancel ?? by ?? of ?? street; ?? the
cancel ?? by ?? of ?? street; ?? the
[...] select tiny few people…out in force.” And despite a heavy-handed attempt to turn an online survey about I-502 into a push-poll, Belville still found roughly over a third of his followers inclined to vote [...]
[...] Will Washington State join the fight, or take the bait? How many unjust DUI convictions is a pseudo-legal ounce worth? Imagine this were a standalone initiative whose sole proposal was a prohibition against drivers with 5-ng/ml in their blood, and zero tolerance for those under 21? Which way would you vote, knowing that NORML considers such strict liabilities to be unscientific, arbitrary, unnecessary and unjust? [...]
In a free country, “the People” choose to choose. It doesn’t always go the way everyone wants it, but that’s part of the concept of voting. So, maybe gay marriage is allowed in one state or not; maybe 420 is allowed in one state or not, etc. It is the option of the People to determine their government. But one vote doesn’t end it all forever; voters should have the option of revisiting each issue every 5 years or so.
The active THC is tested in your blood and the inactive but I don’t think its THC but a marker that is tested with hair or urine. I don’t know how accurate the test is but its the only way,, so far, that will test if you are under the influence the other test just says you have used some time in the past. I know about the PC probable cause line people keep talking about but I think its just fear talking. The I think I heard some one screamed or I think I smell Marijuana only really works on TV. The only negative is if you do get pulled over because they think you are DUI or DUID then they have a limit they can go by. But not using your turn signal is not an excuse to have you give blood.
The “I got mine too bad for you” statement is for those that if the bill don’t make Marijuana legal like tomatoes and if there is a chance that MMJ will loose anything even if its just in their MIND then they fight like crazy to defeat that bill preventing the ones that are not sick or sick enough to get a card from being able to enjoy Marijuana. That is a weird way of looking at it. If Marijuana was like Oxycoton used ONLY for pain then I would understand but its not. It is used to help with medical conditions, to help prevent medical conditions, and as a recreational herb. Unlike Alcohol Marijuana is not additive nor can you OD on it and die. Just because it can help medically does negate its recreational use.
So, where is this active vs. inactive THC test? Gina worked at PAML for a while and has not heard of this seperate test for active THC. Where does it exist and how much does it cost? Where is the cost/benefit analysis? What are the accuracy factors of this test? If I juice with my cannabis leaves and have no psychoactive effect will I still test positive for the DUID? There are so many questions and so many people pushing this bill I feel like Congress trying to debate the bank bailout or the NDAA bills? Why is does it feel like the side pushing this bill doesn’t want me to consider how it will negatively affect me?
Talk about how I get mine and you can’t get yours… that’s like asking a pain patient why they get medical treatment all the time when a healthy person has to wait until they hurt or are ill before they can get it. You have a real straw man argument there. It looks to me like you lack empathy.
How does Active THC stay in your blood up to 60 days when the sites I’ve check say hours even the non-active is in your urine for 2 weeks? Besides just failure to use turn signal is not PC to check for blood when coming from a Dispensary any more then for them to check for BAC when coming from a Liquor store. Why would they even think you were under the influence when you can’t smoke at the Dispensary? It sounds more like you have your teeth on the bit and won’t let go.
They are not throwing out Medical just adding for non-medical you still get every protection except for the DUID. Its still I got mine too bad for you, you will still be thrown in jail for one joint so I believe I can drive while medicated. Guess what just because they don’t pass this has nothing with them trying to pass the 5ng/ml later like they are else where.
You are right. I will not change my mind. Not because of some inability to change my position in the face of bad information but because, as Shakespeare would say, “…I can see a church by daylight.” Right now peace officers would have a difficult time pulling me over and getting the right to draw blood from me. They would have to get my consent in order to do so unless I was involved in an accident and was unconscious. Then it would only be done at the hospital. My status as a medical marijuana patient would be brought up in the courtroom and the fact that THC stays in your blood for up to 60 days after the fact would be taken into consideration. Good luck getting that conviction there Mr. prosecutor. Fast-forward to the days of I-502 passing… uh wait, they no longer need to get a warrant for my blood. I will not have a medical marijuana use defense for having the THC in my blood. All the popo will have to do in order to get my blood is PC, like they saw me leave a dispensary or other cannabis known establishment and followed me long enough to lie and say I didn’t signal when I turned or some other such non-sense.
Probable Cause (PC) is something that any officer can make up about a situation at just about any point in the report. I thought I smelled burned marijuana aroma coming from the car or whatever. While currently there is no standard for when to charge someone with a DUID when it comes to cannabis it certainly doesn’t say that I cannot drive with a THC blood level of 5ng/ml or higher now. You cannot tell me that just having the THC is in my blood would enough to get a conviction. In fact I could go abstinate for 3 days have them check my levels again and show that I was in fact no intoxicated. This law passes and it becomes an automatic conviction. No defense. Currently I have the medical defense for why it is in my blood. Conviction would be highly unlikely. Please show me cases of medical marijuana patients in Washington State being convicted of DUID for just cannabis. I don’t know of a single case. I have been a patient since ’99 in California, Oregon and Washington. Why haven’t I heard of these cases being a problem before your comment.
We come to an interesting part of the argument, is THC really impairing me to drive? The answer appears to be only at the highest end of the spectrum. Since, alcohol is a depressant (central nervous system affecting thought and reaction time) and it removes your inhibitions (mental regulators) it leads to impairment. THC doesn’t do these things. In fact if I am using cannabis alone I am more likely not to get behind the wheel of a car or other machinery that would be dangerous of I was impaired by it. I would be more cautious over all. Why add regulation where it is not needed?
There are many other bills and initiatives that would be better than this one. I think that Don Skakie and Tom Butler are currently proposing one here in Washington State that is even better than Sensible Washington since it attacks Raich vs. Gonzales and the Commerce Clause. It doesn’t ask us to add regulation where it doesn’t need to be and it offers protection to both patient and recreational user alike. Don’t ask me to compromise when there are better options. After all where is NORML’s stance on HR 2306?
Now I do have protections from arrest. I am protected if I have 24 ounces of cured marijuana on me. Now I am protected if I grow my own medicine. Now I am protected if I am care-providing for another patient. And Now I am protected from the 5ng/ml THC blood level automatic DUID.
It’s too bad NAW didn’t listed to NORML (and everyone else) from day one. If they had, we wouldn’t be having this conversation.
I wish you much aloha & happy trails . Glad the altitude where you now live helps your migraine condition (think that is what I thought you told me) ,and I’m movin’ on also to Portland State University,so I hope we end it here.
Well, as I said last march a year ago. Much love and happy trails.
i guess I should have never responded.. water under the bridge, movin on..
“The fundamental cause of trouble in the world today is that the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt.”–Bertrand Russell
“Admit your faults. I would if I had any”–Milton Berle
Sorry you’ve been through so much trouble. In fact, the Washington State medical marijuana law as is gives you no protection from arrest. Under I-502, you’ll at least be protected from arrest when you’re out of the home carrying less than an ounce.
You’ll go through much less trouble when marijuana is legal. As for your “hard fought rights”, what is that, the right to drive with active THC in your system? That’s illegal for all of us, patients and “criminal”, right now! If you are driving NOW and you get pulled over NOW and the cop thinks you’re impaired NOW and they draw your blood NOW and you’re above 5ng/mL NOW you will most likely be convicted of a DUID. Right now, patients are getting convicted at below 5ng/mL, and if you get caught after I-502 at below 5ng, you can make the “I was under the legal limit” argument that alcohol DUIs get to make with respect to the .08 BAC.
I’ve come to believe no matter how much I write about this, you and the No on I-502 crowd will never change your minds. Fortunately for you, polling shows that for every one of you for whom the per se DUID makes you a NO vote, there are six people for whom it makes it a YES vote. Let’s hope that holds out. I’d hate to see an I-502 loss do to Washington medical marijuana what a Prop 19 loss did to California medical marijuana…
Russ GREAT WORK! I just heard the debate! (your side so far) You are a fantastic speaker on this topic!
You’re so full of yourself. No one invited you, you invited yourself. You have no direct ties to WA, and you’ve admitted you’ve never lived in WA.
You did say you’ve lived in Indiana. What are you doing for Indiana? What are you doing for Cambodia?
You’re all talk Ray. One minute you are inviting guest to do radio with the “THC Ministry Hour” with Clayton Douglas a fairly extreme and semi-racist internet talk show host. Then the next minute you are cursing anyone who believes in Jesus, anyone who respects Jack Herer, and anyone who disagrees with NORML.
For 4 months straight you said nothing but bad things about NORML, and nothing but good things about Jesus and Jack Herer. Boy how people change.
You’re flaky MR. Anonymous activist from a different country.
What hard fought Rights are you talking about that you are loosing? I’ve read what I can find out on this and every thing says that Medical will not loose any thing. You will still be able to grow and keep what you need even if there is no dispensaries you will sill be able to buy. If they think your under the influence they will be able to tell that before any blood is drawn then they draw to prove.
I don’t know what you mean by relative safety. Sure if I didn’t grow I probably would never be harassed… but since I do, that isn’t the case. My fiance and I were raided back in November 2010. Before we were growing for ourselves (and WHY we were growing for ourselves), our careprovider was raided, before him the dispensary we purchased our medicine was raided and shut down. So tell me again how we are enjoying our medicine in “relative safety.” We are roadblocking because this bill isn’t good for us. Put together a bill that is good for us and you and we will back it. I smoke for health first, pleasure second. Sorry if you are jealous that you don’t have a debilitating medical condition that allows you to be harassed by law enforcement in Washington State.
Just don’t assume that because I am a medical marijuana it is all coming up roses for me. I have gone through a lot in my life and I have been through even more since I became a medical marijuana patient. I had no idea that I was going to become involved in politics and that being a medical marijuana patient pretty much guaranteed that transition. Watch your comments about this community. It is called a “compassionate use act” for a reason. Show some compassion. We are willing to do the same as long as you aren’t asking us to give up our hard fought for rights.
James, your last post of off-topic jokes of a sexual nature containing profanity has earned you a spot in the Spam folder. Even though they were more compelling than your arguments.
Um, cuz THClist.com is below 500,000 on Alexa and NORML.org is around 20,000?
I’m doing plenty of debating right here – I don’t need to contribute to your page hits.
I don’t do debates on web sites or shows that seek to persuade people to vote against legalization. I’m not going to change any of your tiny audience’s minds.
I’m getting to be exhausted by the stupidity of this conversation but I would like to remind people that last year in my home state of Montana, our medical marijuana program was almost repealed and then it was repealed and replaced with a destructive and unworkable law. Now we are fighting in court and on the ballot to have our system back, this should be a shining example on why we need to make cannabis legal for everyone and change the way our society looks at this plant instead of trying to make medical better.
Every person in this blog who is trying to defend medical patients from the DUID per se limit is not realizing if you can not pass a law for the public at large or your medical programs will be attacked by the idea that too many healthy people are legal under state law.
Washington It’s your chance in November to show the country and the world that you support adults using cannabis, just forget about the actual language of the bill and realize it’s the message that counts.You can’t make change unless you start somewhere and if you don’t fight for the right to use cannabis for everybody than there shall not be rights for anyone to use cannabis meaning if continue to fight for medical and only medical in WA then you will lose the argument and hurt patients.
This will be my last comment on this issue because it’s hurting our focus and dividing our very small community making our job as law reformers very difficult and exhausting.
Please Vote For Any positive changes and get the ball rolling.
If norml can’t win at the medical level.. it certainly is not going to win at the recreational level. Neither is the ACLU … so whom is going to fight them and win Russ when they come hard and heavy ??
Those whom can possess 1 oz. or the other limits you mentioned ??
Are they going to pay the legal bill?
We all know McKenna isn’t going to stand up to fight the feds on recreational use of cannabis let alone medical use..
I say McKenna because he is the boughten future for wa., unfortunately.
A federal judge in Sacramento this week dismissed a federal lawsuit filed in November by members of the NORML Legal Committee against the US Department of Justice, US Attorney General Eric Holder, and DEA Director Michele Leonhart. The lawsuit (read it here), one of four filed simultaneously in the state’s four federal districts, argues that the Justice Department’s ongoing crackdown against medical marijuana providers and distributors in California is in violation of the Ninth, Tenth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the US Constitution because the use of cannabis therapeutically is a fundamental right. Petitioners also argue, using the theory of judicial estoppel, that the Justice Department had previously affirmed in public memos and in statements made in federal court that it would no longer use federal resources to prosecute cannabis patients or providers who are compliant with state law.
On Wednesday, US District Judge Garland Burrell, Jr., rejected those arguments and and granted the respondent’s dismissal motion.
Now we all know there was 4 of these which are all going down in flames with no way of winning, yet norml will spend donations and ask for donations to do what ??
Same o’l same o’l.. pursuit of happiness of your lawyers to make a living with nothing to show for it but, we jump the same o’l rope again.
Russ,
You claim to be open for debate of the real issues on legalization but, you didn’t allow my debate post on the below:
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Cannabis reform at the international level refers to efforts to ease restrictions on cannabis use under international treaties. Most cannabis reform organizations do not spend a great deal of resources on international cannabis reform, since success would require governmental assistance that has so far not been forthcoming. Decisions to change global drug regulations are usually reached by informal consensus; without such agreement, reform is virtually impossible.
Nations could withdraw from international drug control treaties, but they would almost certainly continue to face great pressure to comply with their provisions. As of January 1, 2005, 180 nations belonged to the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs. The international drug control bodies exert a powerful influence across the globe, preventing even reform-minded nations such as the Netherlands from completely legalizing cannabis.
Internationally, the drug is in Schedule IV of the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, that treaty’s most restrictive category.
Background
The Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs makes a distinction between recreational and medical and scientific uses of drugs. Numerous provisions state that nations are allowed to permit medical use of drugs. However, recreational use is prohibited by Article 4:
The parties shall take such legislative and administrative measures as may be necessary . . . Subject to the provisions of this Convention, to limit exclusively to medical and scientific purposes the production, manufacture, export, import, distribution of, trade in, use and possession of drugs.
Furthermore, the Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances requires its Parties to establish criminal penalties for possession of drugs prohibited under the Single Convention for recreational use. If a nation wished to completely legalize marijuana, it would have to withdraw from the treaties. According to leading researchers in this area of law, every signatory has a right to do this.
So with this in mind–>>However, recreational use is prohibited by Article 4:
How does norml justify it’s “standards” you mentioned ?
Now with the treaties being the law of the land–>> Article VI, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, known as the Supremacy Clause, establishes the U.S. Constitution, U.S. Treaties, made pursuant to the U.S. Constitution, shall be “the supreme law of the land.” The text decrees these to be the highest form of law in the U.S. legal system, and mandates that all state judges must follow federal law when a conflict arises between federal law and either the state constitution or state law of any state. (Note that the word “shall” is used, which makes it a necessity, a compulsion.) However, the Supremacy Clause only applies if the federal government is acting in pursuit of its constitutionally authorized powers, as noted by the phrase “in pursuance thereof” in the actual text of the Supremacy Clause itself.
The “supremacy clause” is the most important guarantor of national union. It assures that the Constitution and federal laws and treaties take precedence over state law and binds all judges to adhere to that principle in their courts. – United States Senate
Origin of the Conception.—How did this distinctive feature of the Constitution come about, by virtue of which the treaty-making authority is enabled to stamp upon its promises the quality of municipal law, thereby rendering them enforceable by the courts without further action? The short answer is that Article VI, paragraph 2, makes treaties the supreme law of the land on the same footing with acts of Congress.
My question would be is norml or aclu going to fight the injunction which would follow I-502 passing the vote of the people ?
I mean, are we the people of the state of Wa. i.e. the tax payers suppose to fend off an injunction which is going to surly occur ?
I am sure the feds will not even mention the DUID part but, will for sure mention “recreational use” as completely prohibited under the treaties they signed.
For a example of what I am getting at please see Monson v. DEA in which was a hemp farm case in which the legislators themselves owned and operated a hemp farm which the DEA refused giving a registration to grow and sell to the public a non THC plant, seeds, and fibers.
I do not understand normls position backing something they should know is not viable.
While I’m entertained by your admitting to the location of your head, I’m somewhat confused as to what your sexual proclivities contribute to the debate.
Russ, I was describing norml and yourself. Not me.
Not sure your contribution of : I’m sorry you do not understand the nuance of GoodA + BadB vs. BadB. Some people have the standard that no matter how GoodA, they can never support BadB. Other people have the standard that the overall GoodA can outweigh the BadB. There are valid ethical and moral arguments to make for each case. Is a valid debate using the Good A+BadB standards ..
Like I said, just double speak Russ.
Sexual proclivities I guess should be used when saying stop screwing people with double talk..
I guess you don’t understand until you lose your cool a bit.. and make remarks as you do.. claiming it was a mistake..
If it was a mistake.. be a man and stop playing games like you do.
I noticed you didn’t include the reply button on your last post.. why not Russ ??
By the way, if your not going to come to thclist.com and debate.. why would I find a need to watch your show ??
While I’m entertained by your admitting to the location of your head, I’m somewhat confused as to what your sexual proclivities contribute to the debate.
As for the other issue you raised, if you care to watch the last five minutes of show #868, I have said all about that I intend to. I let someone belittle and goad me into making an admittedly heinous remark. I am human, and enduring the slings and arrows I’ve received thus far has certainly worn me down. I made a mistake.
I’m sorry you do not understand the nuance of GoodA + BadB vs. BadB. Some people have the standard that no matter how GoodA, they can never support BadB. Other people have the standard that the overall GoodA can outweigh the BadB. There are valid ethical and moral arguments to make for each case.
Your just full of double speak Russ.
My head being up my ass is ok as long as my hand is jacking me off.. but, if my hand is not jacking me off, it’s not ok for my head up my ass.
No wonder norml has been in business for so long.. great spin artist.
And they put one of the most best spin artist next to steve sarich on the internet.
I am surprised no one has posted the email yet in regards to your ill distorted comments the head of the board had to send out and apologize for your uncalled for behavior.
Care to spin that one Russ ??
We don’t support the inclusion of the per se DUID provision in Washington’s I-502. We lobbied NAW to not include it. They did anyway. Our board then had to choose whether or not to endorse a legalization initiative + per se DUID, and they did.
In Colorado, there is a stand-alone per se DUID being proposed. We are clearly against that.
I don’t understand what your last sentence means.
http://norml.org/news/2012/02/28/stop-colorado-s-unscientific-and-unnecessary-drugged-driving-law
Above is the stance of norml in regards to CO. DUID. – Tuesday, 28 February 2012
Legislation Moves Forward — >>>Stop Colorado’s Unscientific and Unnecessary Drugged Driving Law<<–
For these reasons, NORML opposes the imposition of per se laws for drivers who test positive for THC in the blood without additional demonstrable evidence of psychomotor impairment. Please contact your member of the State Senate and urge them to reject SB 117. You can do so by visiting NORML's 'Take Action' Center here:
http://capwiz.com/norml2/issues/alert/?alertid=61012286
Sincerely,
The NORML Team
Now here in Wa. it is just the opposite with the legalization initiative I-502.
Even though you claim norml is against the DUID provision.. you and norml are all for it regardless of the flaws of the duid.
Now it is just the opposite with you Russ.. claiming it's ok. to have the DUID because you don't want anyone driving under the influence to hit your car or mine..
Make up your mind and stop following the donations of your sponsors in wa. state.
That is some great news, pot is going to be a lot cheaper. Weed had to stay that high because of the black market. If people can buy cheap from a care giver then he could turn around and resale to the black market and make money off it. I see it that when its LEGAL and all adults can buy then why would you buy from the BM? That does not mean you will get Cheap weed but weed at a cheap price. No matter what the place where will be buying the weed from they are not going to have that Green Mexico Swag. Not sure how they will keep it IN State though?
If you can point to where we have been lying, I’ll gladly disabuse you of that notion.
You are going to find all fifty states in the headlines as the White House has a specific policy agenda of targeting drugged drivers. As they should; it is their jobs to regulate highway safety, and I don’t need anybody loaded on Oxycontin, alcohol, marijuana, or anti-histamines running into my car. Or yours.
Now, we agree that the per se DUID method of targeting these drivers is unnecessary, unscientific, and unjust. It also begs the question as to why no per se limits ever seem to be floated for Oxycontin. But taken on its own, a headline that points to more DUID arrests isn’t necessarily bad. Could be that cops are actually catching more impaired drivers. Could be there are more impaired drivers out there to catch.
If DUIDs go up in Washington, they may rise as cops not wasting time on bringing someone in on a marijuana possession arrest have the time to patrol more for actually impaired drivers. All of these outcomes are possible, but you can’t call someone else’s prognostication “lying”.
There also seems to be some question as to the validity of that story compared to the data presented in this one: http://www.kvoa.com/news/over-27k-arrested-for-dui-in-arizona-in-2011/
http://ktar.com/6/1509936/Drug-and-marijuana-related-DUIs-on-the-rise
Prescription drug and marijuana related DUIs on the rise in Arizona
MESA — In 2009, 35 percent of all DUIs in Mesa involved prescription drugs and marijuana. In 2011, that number climbed to 52 percent.
Wait till I-502 passes in Wa… this will be the state in the headlines with the increase. Even though now as the law stands in wa… all persons under the influence are subject to arrest and prosecution.
Seems the only reason for the DUID is to trick voters into voting yes just like the new alcohol law which is being ruled against in court.
If the DUID section is the reason voters voted for I-502.. it will be ruled against in court when challenged.
It would be nice for a change for Norml to stop lying and misinforming the public for donations.
Once again, Sean:
Colorado = 5ng per se DUID. We oppose that.
Washington = LEGALIZATION OF MARIJUANA + 5ng per se DUID. We support legalization while lamenting DUID.
But, clearly, legalization is our Prime Directive, while ending discrimination against pot smokers is a secondary directive.
Bad math Steve …
True wholesale pricing allows profit ranges in the stratosphere on schwag. Source pricing per pound is less than the proposed per ounce pricing by NAW for dirt weed. Their proposal pricing is specifically geared to compete with domestic and nearby import pricing on high quality cannabis.
On scale, if you can’t make near 150% or more profit margin over cost at $1100 per pound, with all the quality standards met for even medical, you’re in the wrong business. This will still rank MJ as the most profitable agricultural commodity in the US even if it is just at 50% for some …
Existing commercial greenhouse operations in the NW supply all sorts of things while managing healthy profit margins even in the face of cheap imports for various goods. They do so by covering acres with their operations, not hobby garden patches, and compete by having reduced shipping costs, known quality, local job market influences, etc.
And stop trying to confuse the idea of legal comprehension with reading the darn thing. Your take on this is clearly jaded and you’re only losing influence by badgering people vs outlining clear on point examples. Dont have time to do point comparison? Tough, get an intern or someone else to do instead of helping make this divide even stronger.
The interpretation after passing will be even more confusing to the general public, just like all law is, thanks to the way to process works. Even if passed this may never be implemented fully on every level while its being “interpreted.” …
The dispensaries probably won’t exist as we know them now win or lose. Win, they get replaced by a legal structure that says they have to play by the rules (right now they are operating outside of accepted interpretation). Lose, the feds and local communities follow California’s example and run then back underground … This is the most likely outcome of it not being held up in challenge and the most likely outcome of the backlash another failed legalization attempt will result in.
As for it taking 20 years to undo? Again, this is narrow minded and grandstanding. If it was the only one to pass over the next 20 years and only Washington was to commit, then perhaps this exaggeration would hold true. The fact that other states will follow suite and probably offer up better solutions, will give counter point much sooner to make changes and challenges more forthcoming.
People are flat out dying here in the US and more so in other places around the globe. Every year this drags on means more deaths on the hands of people who would block the starting point of change. I dont want any more blood on my hands, I would hope you would keep this in perspective when you’re committing people to certain death thanks to prohibition as we know it.
When you state Jack Herer is your guiding light–we all know Jack was an idiot when it came to direct political action & the MMJ Prop-215 that got it all started in Cali was vehemently opposed by goofy Herer. It was only years later that he admitted his error.
How dare you call people scum-bags for supporting a solid first step. The illogic of Jack Herer lives on in the hippy dippy as the “I got mine” from MMJ. Let’s just screw a world (Many on death row in ASEAN countries near me in Cambodia) ,that kills people for using small amounts of cannabis after they watch it on Hollywood movies & want to be cool. The “I GOT MINE” only think of their narcissistic selves.
I’m neither a “hippy dippy stoner” or a “hempster”. I’m an activist and I provide free legal support to patients. Jack was a good friend of mine and a good friend of the cannabis community worldwide. You on the other had are contributing what, exactly, to the community? Nothing but more ignorance, apparently.
“Do you really think these places that will be allowed to sell Marijuana will carry any thing but the best? No body is going to sell old dried Mexican Green junk when there are dispensaries carrying all those varieties?”
Only the “best”? According to the sponsors of the bill, growers must be willing to wholesale their “best” quality cannabis for a whopping $68 an ounce. Yep….that’s what they’ve said on the NAW website. That’s right down there in the Mexican schwag range.
The problem with your theory is that those “dispensaries” will not be allowed to exist under I-502. How do I know? NAW spokes-person Alison Holcomb has already posted that on the NORML website.
So you’re going to get that Mexican schwag quality you hate at the outrageous state prices. Not what you had in mind when you supported this? Guess you should have READ it!
Perfect is not the enemy of good….BAD is the enemy of good!
Yeah….let’s just pass this real piece of crap and then spend the next 20 years figuring out how to fix it….great idea! I hope you have one of those “self-driving cars” ready.
I think that everyone posting on this critical issue should have to at least READ THE INITIATIVE they’re supporting before commenting on it like a dumbass. If you can’t read, at least have someone read it to you.
Their own Board members can’t decide which side they’re on! Attorney Jeff Steinborn was one of the most vocal critics of I-501 a few months ago and published articles stating why he opposed it….and now he’s for it.
Whatever keeps all those NORML attorneys making money, right? Scum-buckets all!
Thank you, Russ, for finally cutting through the bullshit and hysteria. I-502 opponents are simply trying to stand up for the principles they believe in. It’s not black and white. I-502 is shades of grey and each individual must decide for themselves what they are willing to accept.
http://www.capwiz.com/norml2/issues/alert/?alertid=61012286
But yet NORML is fighting the 5 ng/ml CO, you jackasses need to decide which side of the fence you are going to ride. This shows how inneffective you are becoming.
I’ll say it for the umpteenth time – I’m not censoring anything. I run WordPress with Akismet spam control. First posts and any posts with multiple links are always held for moderation. The only thing I delete is obvious spam that slips through, hate speech, and off-topic ramblings.
I also reserve the right to delete people who piss me off. This is my workplace, and while I have a very high tolerance for free speech, if you begin insulting my friends and colleagues, making threats, behaving like a jackass, or anything becoming, in my sole judgment, disruptive to my work environment, I’ll axe your posting privileges. You can insult me all you like (it motivates me) and you can denigrate any idea or concept or argument you like, but this will not become a forum for personal attacks.
Finally, NORML has always been and still is opposed to per se DUID policies. In Colorado right now, Paul Armentano (who worked with the group that killed that bill last year) is working to kill the per se DUID bill. Washington State is not proposing a per se DUID bill, it is proposing legalization of marijuana with a per se DUID provision.
Why is it so hard for you and some others to understand the concept of prioritization? Our #1 reason for being is to legalize marijuana. Ending discrimination against marijuana consumers is a secondary principle. So when the choice is one of “legalize marijuana, but accept some discrimination”, we must legalize marijuana. And we’re wise enough to see that when marijuana is legalized, it is much easier to end discrimination against those who consume it.
Yes, and the evidence shows that more of them would not exceed the limits. Actually, what it really tells us is that the limits are arbitrary and unconnected to impairment, which you and I consistently agree on, so please, stop trying to convince me of something I agree on!
Yes, per se DUID is unscientific, unnecessary, and unjust.
Yes, some person who tokes will get a DUID when they aren’t impaired.
Nobody is disputing that.
The dispute is one over pragmatism and ethics. You see it as “How could we condemn an innocent toker to a DUID conviction, just to get a legal ounce for all tokers?” We see it as “How could we condemn 10,000 innocent persons to a drug criminal arrest and day in jail, just to protect the slim chance someone who smokes pot all the time can get out of a DUID when they test above 5ng (or 0ng) after a police officer suspected them of impairment?”
You see it as “It is unethical to enshrine in law an unscientific statute that harms any innocent tokers.” We see it as “It is unethical to waste any opportunity to begin the dismantling of the abomination of prohibition that harms all innocent tokers.”
You see it as “We can wait until we get the right kind of legalization on the ballot.” We see it as “You can vote with the Drug Czar, ONDCP, DEA, and Washington Sheriffs, or you can vote with NORML, DPA, MPP, SSDP, LEAP, DRCNet, MAPS, and ACLU.” (Funny how it’s only NORML and ACLU who keep getting bashed over this, when in fact, every major marijuana law reform organization is supporting I-502.)
You can use all the ALL CAPS you like, but everyone here already understands the arguments on per se DUID. We all wish it wasn’t in the legalization language.
Russ you seem like someone I would like to align with I am currently working on putting together a weekly podcast but getting started seems to be difficult I bought a domain an a hosting site I just need to get it off the ground any advice would be a huge help.
This should be
You are just NOT going to be allowed to grow how ever many plants you want and carry how ever much on you want if can’t even carry ONE Ounce first.
How is this not Legalization? You can go and buy up to an ounce and not get arrested. Medical will keep their plants and how much they can have that will not change. If a person under 21 is medically allow to have it now and this will not change the Medical Laws then why wouldn’t they still be allowed to have it after this passes?
Do you really think these places that will be allowed to sell Marijuana will carry any thing but the best? No body is going to sell old dried Mexican Green junk when there are dispensaries carrying all those varieties? Lets not do the ‘keep hurting the Majority to protect a few’ move again like they did in CA, OK. With this a friend will be able to go out and get your weed if you can’t and they don’t have worry about being arrested either.
So this is Not Perfect but why do you want Nothing if you can’t have Everything? You are just going to be allowed to grow how ever many plants you want and carry how ever much on you if can’t even carry ONE Ounce first. Lets Pass this first then worry about growing at home later. Besides which I keep hearing about self driving cars are coming, then you can smoke all you want and let the car drive. Again the time is NOW! The time to vote YES is here, don’t waste this chance.
Patients against possession, buying and consuming cannabis? where is your legal dispensary’s in Washington state? I-502 would make marijuana LEGAL to sell with a state license, you should be fighting FOR not against I-502!
If you want to remain criminals in the public level for simply being a cannabis consumer, fine it’s your choice. But really in my opinion, It’s time to move the ball forward not backwards. please stop distracting the focus of our community with negativity and work with us to make the choice to use this wonderful plant LEGAL!
We did not say that regular users would exceed 5ng/ml a week after the last toke. We said regular users COULD exceed the LIMITS (plural) set forth in I-502. This includes the ZERO TOLERANCE ZERO EXCEPTIONS policy which applies to LEGAL patients under the age of 21.
Don’t forget that the 5ng/ml limit is not the only limit contained in I-502. There is a second, even more arbitrary limit of 0 ng/ml for those under 21, even patients using cannabis under a doctor’s supervision.
It is quite clear from the evidence you cite – a woman who was at 3ng/ml SIX DAYS after last toke – that regular users, including RECREATIONAL USERS, can exceed the limit (again 0 ng/ml for those under 21, even LEGAL PATIENTS) at least SIX DAYS after last toke.
We agree that the woman in Case 1 is likely impaired, not solely because of her reading of 38 ng, but also because of the OBVIOUS SIGNS OF IMPAIRMENT (crossing the center line, etc.)
It is UNDENIABLE that the man in Case 2 was impaired. It is a scientifically proven fact that the combination of alcohol and cannabis increases the risk of a crash exponentially.
While we agree that these are precisely the type of drivers who need to be removed from the roads, we disagree that a per se DUIC law is needed to do so. We believe, wholeheartedly, that the CURRENT DUI laws would have been more than adequate to convict BOTH of the drivers in these Case Examples.
No censorship, Russ? Where is our response to dispute the blatant hysterics being spread by Kevin Oliver, Executive Director of WANORML, which implies that I-502 oppenents wish to “drive around like Cheech and Chong.” We though NORML was above Reefer Madness, but perhaps that principle went out the window along with NORML’s long-time opposition to per se DUIC.
Right… and we just wanted to make sure that Benjamin wasn’t under any mistaken impression that I-502 would end the arrest and imprisonment of those who possess a single plant.
In the 40 years since I sent my $15 LID money to legalizesent NORML’s way,and 20 years since having a HEMPSTOCK festival on my gentleman’s farm next to Oprah Winfrey–I’m flummoxed at the stupidity & sour grapes of hempsters. Jack Herer logic (Hyperbolic illogic), is the norm for so many over these last 2 years of initiative attempts at progress.
I never believed in the hippie-dippy mindset of stupid nonsense,yet these ex Sen Wah folks & the NO on Prop 19 people make me sick to my stomach. To think I was going to make the effort to go and volunteer at Sen Wah last year to get ballot status-THEY FAILED TWICE,but I-502 gets approved–so FUCK OFF STUPID STONERS FROM HELL
No, regular users are not going to be above 5ng/mL a week after the last toke. In the Karschner study, only six of the 25 regular, chronic tokers had any measurable ng/mL and none were above 5ng. The greatest amount after 7 days was 3ng, registered by the woman who clocked in at 7ng on admission – and she was the only one who had toked only 3 days of the past 14, and she smoked 4 blunts on the day of admission.
You keep fighting the “5ng <> impairment” fight and how many times can I tell you that I agree with you? That’s not the point. The point is whether that unscientific, unnecessary, and unjust statute in Washington is ultimately more or less harmful than the unscientific, unnecessary, and unjust prohibition of marijuana for all nationwide. It’s not even close in my mind.
right on kevin!
Really? These are your defenses for supporting prohibition?
CASE 1 from MICHIGAN:
Woman driving in snow crosses the center line into oncoming traffic and killed one, paralyzed two, and injured one. Her readings were at 38ng and 31ng, two and five hours after the crash.
So, it seems to me she smoked a lot of pot, got behind the wheel, and drove impaired enough to cross a center line and wreck and kill. Yes, those are the marijuana DUIDs I don’t want on the road. (Oh, and if it was less than an ounce, I-502 would get her out of that possession of marijuana charge.)
CASE 2 from MICHIGAN:
Man who drove erratically on a suspended license shows signs of alcohol (breath) and marijuana (eyes) impairment. Admits drinking and smoking pot within the past half-hour. One hour later, he tests at a 8ng/mL THC and a .07 BAC.
So, it seems to me he smoked pot and drank and got behind the wheel immediately after on a suspended license and exhibited enough driving impairment for a cop to stop him. Yes, those are the marijuana DUIDs I don’t want on the road.
Yes, possession of a plant for non-patients will be illegal under I-502.
Just like it is now.
Russ,
I think your a bit off with the longer the wait, the less the detected in the blood.. seems science shows the sooner the test after using cannabis the lower the ng/ml is.
The longer you wait for a test.. the higher the ng/ml are released into the blood stream.
Just a thought. :D
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
In Docket No. 129269, defendant Delores M. Derror was driving east on snow- and slush-covered M-72 when she crossed into oncoming traffic and collided with another vehicle, killing the front-seat passenger, paralyzing two children in the rear seat, and injuring a third child. The accident occurred at approximately 6:00 p.m. Derror admitted that she had smoked marijuana, at 2:00 p.m., earlier that day. Two blood samples were taken, one at approximately 8:00 p.m. and one at approximately 11:00 p.m. The first blood sample reflected 38 nanograms of 11-carboxy-THC per milliliter, and the second contained 31 nanograms of 11-carboxy-THC per milliliter. Derror was charged with operating a motor vehicle with the presence of a schedule 1 controlled substance in her body, causing death and serious injury, under MCL 257.625(4), (5), and (8). Derror was also charged with possession of marijuana, MCL 333.7403(2)(d).
In Docket No. 129364, defendant Dennis Kurts was stopped at approximately 9:00 p.m. for driving erratically. The officer smelled the odor of alcohol on Kurts. Kurts also had glassy, bloodshot eyes. Kurts admitted consuming two beers. During a pat-down search, the officer found a marijuana pipe in Kurts’ pocket. Kurts then admitted that he had smoked marijuana a half-hour earlier. A blood sample was taken at approximately 10:00 p.m. Tests revealed that his blood contained eight nanograms of 11-carboxy-THC per milliliter and 0.07 grams of alcohol per 100 milliliters. Kurts was charged with operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated, third offense, MCL 257.625(9); operating a motor vehicle with the presence of a schedule 1 controlled substance in the body, MCL 257.625(8); and operating a vehicle with a suspended or revoked license, MCL 257.904(3)(a).
Mr. Wallis – Thank YOU for voicing your concerns rationally and politely. We agree that this issue is indeed polarizing and YOUR respectful demeanor is also a blessing.
Again, THANK YOU!
OK, here are some intelligent responses:
“All that it would do is remove the penalties for possession of one ounce or less” – YES, that means possession of an ounce will be legal and 10,000 Washingtonians won’t be arrested for it next year.
“The DUID component of I-502 will make it illegal for almost any cannabis user in Washington (including medical patients) to drive for days or weeks after last using cannabis.” – WRONG. The vast majority of cannabis consumers would be able to drive 1-4 hours after consuming cannabis.
According to http://www.ofm.wa.gov/pop/coagemf/ofm_april1_population_estimates_by_age_and_sex_1990-present.xlsx, there were 5,193,198 adults age 18+ in Washington, with 650,259 aged 18-25 and 4,542,939
aged 26+. According to http://oas.samhsa.gov/2k8state/AppB.htm#TopOfPage, 30.75% of 18-25′s in Washington toked last year (199,955) and 8.98% of 26+ toked last year (407,956), for a total of 607,911 annual tokers.
Now, an “annual toker” is everything from “smoked a joint at the class reunion once this year” to “wake and bake every day”. Obviously the people more on the “class reunion” end of the spectrum are going to be legal to drive almost all the time and definitely shouldn’t be driving within 1-4 hours of toking. So how many of them are actually closer to the “wake and bake” side?
According to the same NSDUH study, 17.32% of 18-25 and 5.83% of 26+ toked within the last month. That brings us to 377,478 tokers more likely to be over the limit. But again, this is everyone from “toke at my friend’s place once a month” to “wake and bake every morning.” Obviously the tokers closer to the “friend’s place” side are legal to drive almost all the time and probably shouldn’t be driving within 1-4 hours of toking. You posit cannabis consumers who’d be unable to drive “for days or weeks”.
The science on THC in blood shows that the majority of people who toke have a ng/mL that spikes to around 100ng after first inhalation, then decreases rapidly from there. Within 1-4 hours, almost everybody tested would be below 5ng/mL. The science also shows that most tokers above 5ng/mL do exhibit impairment and increased crash risk. Indeed, in the oft-cited Karschner study, 11 of 25 subjects had no reading on ng, even after smoking between 1-10 blunts or 1/2 ounce within the past two days. 17 of them had BMI’s above 25 (overweight) and 7 were obese (>30) and all of them tested below 1.6. Eight of them had smoked every day for two weeks and three of them had smoked that day, including Ms. One-Half-Ounce and Ms. Ten-Blunts (whose BMIs were 32.9 and 31.1, respectively). 24 of the 25 had readings below the 5ng/mL threshold. One who’d smoked 4 blunts that day, but only smoked 3 days in the past two weeks, registered at 7ng. One registered at 2.0, two registered above 1.0, everyone else was below 1.0 or had no reading.
So, then, let’s try to estimate how many tokers would fit this cohort: people who have smoked weekly or daily. This is a bit more difficult, as the NSDUH state estimates do not break down toking by day. However, the National NSDUH estimates do. Nationwide, 73.3% of monthly 18-25′s toked >4 times last month, 66% for the 26+’s, for 257,357 estimated weekly Washington tokers. For daily or near daily use (let’s call that >=25 days a month), the figures are 33.2% and 31.7%, for 121,350 estimated near-daily tokers. For daily use (30 days a month), the figures are 19.4% and 21%, a total of 77,468.
This means, at most, between 1 in 8 and 1 in 5 tokers in Washington State could reasonably fit your definition of a cannabis consumer who uses so regularly they risk the possibility of being above 5ng/mL at all times. Now, go back to the Karschner study, where only 1 in 25 tokers who’d used regularly and within the past two days tested above 5ng/mL. Plug that into the 77,468 and you get 3,099 tokers in Washington with the potential to be above 5ng/mL, or plug it into the 121,350 and you get 4,854. In other words, you are willing to condemn 630,000 people to remain criminals and guarantee at least 10,000 of them will be arrested and branded drug criminals for life in order to protect the potential of between 0.5% and 0.8% of all Washington’s pot smokers to defend themselves against a >5ng/mL DUID charge they don’t deserve and they probably wouldn’t beat at >5ng anyway.
Remember, that’s just potential. Now we have to figure out what is the average chance this 0.5% to 0.8% of annual pot smokers who are driving in a way that doesn’t demonstrate impairment are likely to get pulled over by a cop in Washington State, or what is the likelihood of getting into an accident, which we’ll assume for the sake of argument weren’t the pot driver’s fault. There were 34,098 DUID arrests in 2010 (http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10tbl69.xls) in Washington, and while I don’t know how many are cannabis-only, I’m willing to assume it’s far less than half of them and probably less than a quarter of them. According to http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/planning/wtp/datalibrary/population/growthinlicenseddrivers.htm, we can estimate about 5 million drivers in Washington, so at best, only 1 in 147 drivers got a DUID of any type last year. If it’s half or a quarter of DUIDs that are cannabis only, then it’s 1 in 294 or 1 in 588.
According to http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/mapsdata/collision/pdf/Washington_State_Collision_Data_Summary_2010.pdf, there were 101,576 total collisions involving 187,122 vehicles. With 5 million drivers in the state, it looks like at best, 1 in 26 people driving risk a crash.
Therefore, what we’re left with, out of all 630,000 Washingtonians who smoke pot this year, are between about 3,100 and 4,800 tokers who’d be at risk of a per se DUID at all times yet not impaired. 119 to 185 of them might get in a crash and, if tested, 5 to 7 of them might be above 5ng when tested. 21 to 33 of them might get pulled over on suspicion and charged with DUID. Now, figure that, at least in Colorado (still awaiting Washington data), 90% of people charged with DUI cannabis in any amount are convicted. Some of the crashes may be DUIDs, but let’s pretend they’re completely separate, so, at best, there are 26 to 40 potential per se DUID charges. If only 10% are able to get out of the charge now, with no per se, then we’re talking about 3 to 4 people for whom this per se DUID dooms their shot at acquittal.
Now, obviously, we’re only taking about near daily tokers, the ones you presume use so much they’d both be unimpaired and above 5ng/mL at all times. There will certainly be the DUIDs assigned to that unlucky “class reunion” toker that wrecks on the way home eight hours after he toked and yet, somehow, tests above 5ng. So if you want to oppose I-502 on the principle that “not one innocent person should suffer”, that’s fine, but don’t go pretending that “I-502 will make it illegal for almost any cannabis user in Washington (including medical patients) to drive for days or weeks after last using cannabis”, cuz it just ain’t so.
“Therefore the LEO could reasonably demand a blood sample merely because they found cannabis in a vehicle.” Categorically false. Possession of an ounce is LEGAL under I-502, much as possession of a six pack of beer is legal now. If you’re pulled over and you possess an unopened six pack and you demonstrate no indications of having drank or impairment, no cop can compel a blood test or even a breathalyzer. Smelling like weed can’t be probable cause, because all that proves is you possessed some, which is legal. Bloodshot eyes might be probable cause to give you a roadside sobriety test, as would demonstrating impairment (driving badly), as would a recently-smoked joint or pipe in the car, but if you passed that roadside test, there’d be no probable cause for a blood draw.
“or lose their license for at least a year. “ Actually, it’s 90 days or longer. And you make another point for me, which is that you can refuse the blood test and force them to get a warrant. Yes, you’ll lose your license administratively for 90 days or more, but maybe they can’t get a warrant and you go to DUID trial with no blood evidence against you. Or they do get a warrant and that takes even more time for you to be reducing that THC in blood count before the draw. My default position has always been to refuse to do roadside sobriety tests, D.R.E.’s, breathalyzers, and blood draws, because I figure if a cop thinks I’m guilty, why give him more evidence to prove it? I’ll take any administrative sanction over being a convicted criminal any day.
Secondly for some reason 502 does not allow for homegrowing. Neither does current law. So this point is irrelevant. And the reason was that polling showed less support for it passing if home grow was included.
“I-502 that restricts the sale of cannabis to a handful of licensed dealers is written so broadly that many lawyers have stated that a felony charge could be leveled against someone who passed a joint because they “delivered” cannabis.” If you really think a prosecutor is going to waste time pursuing a felony case over passing a joint, I think all the logic, reason, and data I’m typing here is a wasted effort. Right now, the federal government could lock you up in prison for five years for possessing a joint, but in practice, they don’t mess with anyone until they’re growing 100 plants. Plus, what is the situation that occurs where you’re sharing a joint with a friend and a cop is there to bust you for it? Smoking in public? That’s illegal.
“5ng/ml DUID threshold has no basis in science whatsoever.” Absolutely right. But that’s not the point. The point is, “shall we accept an arbitrary unscientific DUID statute in order to dismantle an arbitrary unscientific prohibition of cannabis?” My position is that 10,000 fewer cannabis arrests in America and the first state to legalize is a far greater good than the risk of much less than 10,000 cannabis consumers losing a slim defense to a DUID charge is a bad. Your position is that holding out for home grow and no change in DUID law is worth 10,000 marijuana arrests every year.
“you continue to try to force this on the people of WA despite the fact that there are real alternatives to 502.” No, there aren’t. The options are:
Vote YES on I-502 with NORML, MPP, SPA, SSDP, and begin the ending of prohibition
Vote NO on I-502 with ONDCP, DEA, Drug Czar, and Washington Sheriffs and continue prohibition
Don’t vote.
The “real alternatives” have not made the ballot in years and years of trying.
“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” Driving with THC in your blood is not an “essential liberty”, in fact, it is currently a crime in Washington State. Legalization of an ounce isn’t “little”, it protects 10,000 people and begins the end of prohibition; it isn’t “temporary” unless someone repeals it in the future. Franklin was writing that in 1754 in the context of the British Empire taxing colonists without representation and ignoring colonists’ petitions for redress of grievances.
Russ – How does your friend Jason feel about your recent tirades against the medical marijuana community? Does he stand by your lack of compassion and direct assault on the paraplegics, terminally ill and debilitated patients in Washington state?
And how would I-502 change Jason’s situation? If he is a patient, he currently has the right to grow cannabis. If he’s a recreational user, I-502 provides him ZERO protection for “manufacturing” cannabis. Nothing gained for Jason, with the exception of an “arbitrary, unnecessary and unscientific” per se DUI law.
Drive around like Cheech and Chong? Really, Kevin? Does that include getting behind the wheel of a car after admittedly smoking “a shitload of hash,” like you have personally been arrested and convicted for?
I-502 opponents are not asking to drive around after smoking “a shitload of hash.” We’re asking to retain our driving priviliges when we are definitely unimpaired, yet happen to exceed I-502′s “arbitrary, unnecessary and unscientific” per se DUI limits.
Research has REPEATEDLY shown that regular cannabis users, including RECREATIONAL USERS, can have THC levels exceeding the limits set forth in I-502 for at least a WEEK after last toke. A WEEK! Do you honestly believe that someone can still be impaired a WEEK after last toke?
Benjamin – I-502 will not stop anyone from going to jail for a plant. The posession of even a single non-flowering plant is explicitly outlawed by I-502. This is one of MANY flaws in the proposal. We can get past the vast majority of the compromises that had to be made to carve out a legal exception for an ounce, but we cannot accept a compromise that will send UNIMPAIRED drivers to jail.
Jamie – No one is waiting for the perfect initiative. We simply aren’t willing to settle for a law that convicts unimpaired drivers because we are so desperate for a win.
DUID in Arizona picks up as medical marijuana debates pick up. Over the top as medical marijuana is approved.
http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/local/mesa/article_26d47d96-63f5-11e1-b2ba-001871e3ce6c.html
Great example of what washington LEO is looking forward too, as they are in training as we argue about this voting of yes or no..
This will surly fix any budget short falls for all LEA across wa. state.
GO I-502 ? NOT!!
Go bust real criminals and not cannabis consumers.
I guess if you want to remain a criminal, do what you gotta do.
They think they’re going to tax a “weed” and it’s comical. Sure if you put it in the store but really…who wants mex brick weed that’s old and nasty. Want to grow? $250 start and $1,000 per year, good god! $83.33 PER MONTH. What if you’re not selling & just want a self supporting, know where & how your shit’s grown, small tent or greenhouse? It’s outrageous. I’ve seen some crap legalization ideas/bills here in WA. but this is one of the worst.
Best case, we get an inch & take it a mile towards 100% no strings attached legalization.
Worst case it invites the FEDs into your life at many angles, including confiscation of rights such as the right to bare arms.
-
“According to a new memo from the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, it is illegal for any registered medical-marijuana patient to own or possess firearms or ammunition.”
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2011-09-29/medical-marijuana-guns/50607606/1
-
The FEDs are raiding folks for Raw Milk…how long before they deem registered growers “unfit” parents?
The give an inch, take it a mile swings both ways in these corrupt days.
“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
- Ben Franklin
First of all lets be honest 502 isn’t even close to legalization. All that it would do is remove the penalties for possession of one ounce or less and even then only for those over 21. Under 502 people will still go to prison for growing a plant! Admittingly its better than nothing but not when it comes at the price of a DUID measure.
The DUID component of I-502 will make it illegal for almost any cannabis user in Washington (including medical patients) to drive for days or weeks after last using cannabis. That is the pure and simple truth of a 5ng/ml limit. The pathetic arguments that NAW/ NORML offer all boil down to either probable cause or psuedo science that claims that THC somehow will magically be out of peoples blood much quicker than has ever previously been seen. Anyone with a ounce of common sense knows that LEO (law enforcement officers) can and will use the mere smell (or what they claim to be the smell) of cannabis as probably cause. Under Washington’s existing implied consent law a driver is required to give a blood sample if the LEO has probably cause to believe they are driving impaired or lose their license for at least a year. I-502 will redefine impairment to mean anyone who is over 5ng/ml limit. Therefore the LEO could reasonably demand a blood sample merely because they found cannabis in a vehicle. Essentially 502 would mean that instead of being arrested for simple possession anyone found to be in possession of cannabis while driving will now be arrested for the more serious DUID charge. There is a reason prosecutors are for 502 it will let them give cannabis users more time in jail and higher fines!
Secondly for some reason 502 does not allow for homegrowing. The NAW people would have us believe this is because it is somehow innately dangerous to grow cannabis, it is not. The dangerous of growing cannabis can be broken down into three categories LEOs, thieves and electrical fires. Obviously LEOs would no longer be a danger if homegrowing was legal. Simmilarly in a world where homegrowing was permitted thieves would be much less of a problem, the basic rules of supply and demand tell us that the value of cannabis would drop dramatically with more people allowed to grow it. Legal growers could also call LEOs in the event of a robbery (imagine that LEOs actually protecting or serving) thus significantly raising the risk for thieves. A combination of more risk and less reward would deter most would be “weed thieves”. Finally legal growers would have access to licensed electricians not only reducing the risks of electrical fires but also stimulating the economy.
Next the provision of I-502 that restricts the sale of cannabis to a handful of licensed dealers is written so broadly that many lawyers have stated that a felony charge could be leveled against someone who passed a joint because they “delivered” cannabis. If I-502 was really interested in legalization then why restrict the production of cannabis in such a way that it virtually guarantees continued black market activity? Not to mention the fact that I-502s corporate sponsors will no doubt expect to receive a monopoly on those incenses thus giving control of WA’s cannabis industry to handful of out of state companies.
Finally the fact that the 5ng/ml DUID threshold has no basis in science whatsoever. The US Department of Transportation has said as much. Even more damming for NORML your own director Allen St Piere has said “We fully recognize the per se DUI marijuana provisions in I-502 are arbitrary, unnecessary, and unscientific,” Yet you continue to try to force this on the people of WA despite the fact that there are real alternatives to 502.
If NORML has an intelligent response to anything I’ve said I would love to hear it. So far all I’ve seen is insults and insinuations towards anyone with concerns about 502. In many cases NORML/ NAW has simply censored questions and resorted to petty personal attack. It makes me wonder if you even really believe in 502 or if your just shills at this point. Those of us against I-502 are not a tiny minority or a fringe group, we are real people who have read the initiative and are not prepared to give up our necessary liberties for the illusion of temporary safety.
All you have to do is look at CA and what has happened after their Prop 19 failed because it wasn’t perfect. Cities are banning dispensaries the Fed’s are cracking down AGAIN and I believe its because 19 Failed. Here is a Chance to start the ball rolling to end the war on Marijuana. We can’t win it all, all at once but we do have to start from some where. Once one state passes to legalize Marijuana then another will, after another will then the Government will have to Legalize it. After this passes then you can go in and upgrade it to make it better but you won’t be able to fix anything if you vote no on this. I watch one of the shows about this and there was deliveries to people that can’t get out to get it themselves. Vote Yes on 502.
Blood sucking ambulance chasers.
Hmm. How do I reply without much-deserved profanity?
Here goes:
Steve, one of my dearest friends, Jason, is a paraplegic patient in California, living on a fixed disability income. He’s been a dedicated volunteer for NORML. Then one day, some dirtbag snitched on him and brought down The Man on his recording studio and his home, by way of threatening to get a warrant and shoot his pit bull.
Facing multiple charges including manufacturing that would equal years in prison, Jason called me for help. I called NORML attorney Omar Figueroa, who, without even letting me finish the story, agreed to take Jason’s case, pro bono, as far as it takes to keep Jason out of a cell.
That’s one story. I can collect plenty more just like it.
But the facts are these: Most – the vast majority – of NORML lawyers don’t make a lot of money. Most are drowning in a mountain of student loan debt. Many are volunteering their time for NORML chapters, assisting collectives and dispensaries, and lobbying their legislatures.
And all of them got into helping keep marijuana smokers out of jail not to make a buck, but to do what is right.
After all, when you drop six figures of student loans on a law degree, there are many options to choose from. Corporate business law in civil court is far more lucrative than anything in criminal court. Of all the specialties in criminal law, drug law defense makes very little, and marijuana law defense makes even less.
Now, if you want to talk about someone out to make a buck, let’s talk about pot growers hiding behind a medical law to sell to the black market at prohibition prices. You wouldn’t know anyone like that, would you, Steve?
It’s just amazing how stuff happens like that here on the NORML site. It’s lucky that NORML won’t get to count the votes on 502! Don’t bother voting on anything here on this site.
Yeah Russ….everyone will “probably” be safe from a $10,000 DUID….or…. “maybe not”. Will NORML be providing free DUI attorneys for the suckers who took their advice and voted for 502? Bah, ha, ha! Call a NORML attorney and ask for free help. They ALL missed the class in law school on “pro bono” representation. These are the biggest blood sucking abulance chaser out there. The more pot becomes legal, the less chance they have of buying that new home in Belize.
Just keep trying to convince us that NORML is supporting a new law that will give the cops a new tool to throw pot smokers in jail….but they “probably” won’t use it. You’re kidding, right, Russ? Is ANYONE stoned enough to believe that? (Apparently)
And I’m sure that most patients under 21 only use cannabis once a week. You failed to mention that they will NEVER be able to drive! To bad for them, right, Russ?….they should just buck up, quit driving, and stop whining. You’re a real piece of work, Russ.
But thanks for your “probably not” scientific analysis of the situation. You’re obviously a true expert on the subject. I hope everyone that votes for I-502 understands that they “probably”, “kinda”, “sorta” be “legal”….and if not, you can send NORML more money to fix the mess they’ve made for you.
And how about your average stoner. How many of YOU are going to jail for a DUID? It’s bad enough that you could care less about legal patients, but when it starts happening to recreational users, that will be a totally different story.
NORML will cry “foul”…they’ll claim that they never supported that section of the law. Then the NORML, and their referred attorneys, will:
A. make a butt-load of money trying, unsuccessfully to defend all the new DUID cases and
B. ask you idiots for more contributions to NORML so they can “right this terrible wrong again cannabis users”…..that they are currently supporting.
You better just light up another bowl and not worry about it. NORML will figure out how to get into your pocketbook. They’ve been doing it successfully for forty years now. This will provide them with years of future income. I suspect that they will support a DUID measures in every state once they figure out how much money they’ve made here in Washington…should I-502 actually pass.
Exactly. Thank you. Support I-502 for a chance at real progress, and stop waiting for the “perfect” initiative… It is never going to happen. Let’s legalize while we have the chance, and not waste our chance squabbling again… It’s hard enough to legalize without people within the cannabis community fighting in favor of continued prohibition. Seriously, stop, and support I-502.
“is greater then the privilege to drive around like Cheech and Chong”
Kevin…you know that’s not what this is about, and that it’s about unconstituional (where’s our free trial?) and unethical laws being unacceptable.
Also, it’s quite a shame to hear your opinion has changed so much since you met with us at Sensible Washington’s Steering Committee meeting a couple weeks ago..
“If you smoke pot even once a week you can NEVER legally drive”
WRONG. Even under a zero tolerance in blood, a person who only smokes once a week would probably not test positive five or six days of the week.
“Legalization” is a process, not a end point. The first step is legalizing possession. The next step is legalizing cultivation. The third step is ending discrimination. The fourth step is expanding rights.
You want to be in Hollywood, but you haven’t even crossed the California state line yet. We’ll get to full legalization, but only if we take the steps of partial legalization along the way.
And another thing: “implied consent” doesn’t mean “have no choice”. You can still refuse a blood draw, the IC just means you automatically lose your license for 90 days or more. Upon refusal, a cop can try to get a warrant to draw your blood, but there’s more time wasted waiting for that and maybe your ng/mL drops a little more.
I am completely disgusted by the amount of people who think people deserve to be in jail for a plant. The anti- I-502 crowd is hurting our focus, If the voters of Washington state want to continue to arrest cannabis consumers just because they think the DUID part is bad, and wait another 20 years to get some law reform on the ballot. Then Fine it’s your right to voice your opinion in the ballot but don’t come crying to the rest of us when your state law is restricted, repealed or replaced by lawmakers, who are lobbying in all medical states for stricter rules and regulations.
This is a fight and if the medical cannabis community in Washington state and around the country are not ready to push the ball forward for the general public, the law reforms we have made could be in jeopardy in the coming years.
Please vote yes on ANY reform of legalization on the ballot and that’s a huge step forward in this mission to change our cruel and UN-just marijuana laws.
Licensed drivers in the State of Washington concent to a blood draw as a condition of the privilege to have a license. The right of all citizens over 21 years of age to possess an ounce legally is greater then the privilege to drive around like Cheech and Chong
It will be tough to find someone under 21 who has gotten a DUI in Washington from second-hand smoke because the CURRENT law requires police and prosecutors to prove impairment.
If I-502 passes, impairment is no longer the issue. All police and prosecutors will have to prove is that a person exceeded I-502′s ZERO TOLERANCE, ZERO EXCEPTIONS DUIC law. Whether a driver is impaired or not, if they have even the most miniscule amount of THC in their blood (the teeniest, tiniest fraction of a microscopic amount), they will be automatically found GUILTY of DUI with no rebuttable presumption provided to refute the accusations.
Does NORML support the implementation of the very same law being debated in the Colorado Senate at this precise moment? If the answer is no, how can NORML knowingly support the exact same language in Washington State. To support one bill and oppose the other, when they accomplish the very same objectives, is blatant hipocrisy.
Russ,
Thank you for the article as well as your watchful clarifications in the comments. I truly hope that I-502 is successful in starting the national dialogue this movement so dearly needs. Best of luck and here’s hoping this truly silly prohibition is curtailed and relegated to history.
J. Wallis
Oregon
Dom,
The dispensaries should not be turning a profit. They should be utilizing their patient’s money to provide better quality medicine and make it more accessible for low income individuals in need.
I find it highly unlikely that the good people of Washington state would lie back and allow responsible and respected individuals to be exploited by a citation scam, let alone one run by law enforcement. It COULD happen, but it wouldn’t happen for long so far as we hold the authorities accountable for their powers.
Much Love,
J. Wallis
Oregon
Dear Ma’am,
Bless you for voicing your concerns rationally and politely. This particular issue is very polarizing for many in the voting public and your respectful demeanor is a great blessing. Thank you.
It is very unfortunate that so many patients are having their rights challenged by officials who are not in possession of the appropriate facts and I am so sorry that you had to deal with such a closed minded system. I have long felt that there should be a law that protects and exempts medical users from the impaired driving standard (although, I must stress, only in regards to cannabis). If the concerned members of your group were to encourage and advocate for such legislation I have no doubt that NORML would be overjoyed to assist in the endeavor. However, having a law on a state’s books that legalizes possession for individuals over the age of 21 is a HUGE step towards legitimizing national legalization. When the Federal government steps in and attempts to quash this initiative they will no longer be able to hide behind the lie that they respect the sovereignty of a State. I-502 is not the big fix. It is the beginning, and a beginning that will have immense repercussions on how the Federal government treats its citizens and their rights to exercise dominion over their own bodies.
Thank you again for your heartfelt words, and I hope that peace and wholeness of body bless you for all of your days.
Much Love,
J. Wallis
Oregon
Sir, or Ma’am,
I understand your fear at the thought of not being able to drive. We live in a society where mobility is an absolute must and having that right curtailed would be devastating for any citizen, let alone one who is suffering from an illness. So please, believe me, I do not want to belittle your concern in any way, but I feel you may be missing some of the points Mr. Belville is making.
Firstly, for an officer to test your blood you have to be visibly impaired by a substance other than alcohol, and even in the rare case that you are tested you are likely to be under the threshold. I assume that your concern here is that, due to whatever condition you suffer from, you must be medicated all day, even while driving. In that case, I suspect a judge would have to be exceptionally callous to ruin your record over something so petty. (unless of course you were part of a motor vehicle accident, in which case you may want to look into groups like Community Connection (a service that helps the elderly and disabled)).
Second, as far as I know I-502 will not interfere with your rights as a patient to grow your medicine. As for your access to dispensaries, I don’t see any provisions that say you can’t visit those either. If your concern over the measure is that you won’t have the same rights as a MMJ patient, rest assured, the bill is not aimed at you or your access to your medication.
I hope I’ve put some of your fears to rest and that you’ll rethink your support of I-502. And thank you for being proactive and voicing your concerns to the community. Communication and understanding is important in creating consensus.
Much Love,
J. Wallis
Oregon
Let me just say this: Do you know how bad the authorities are going to look when “Terminal patient is jailed for using medication.” shows up on the front page? Any persecution of medical users is only going to underline the brutish and callous nature of our enforcement system.
This isn’t an issue that we are going to get cleared up in one quick measure. We’re going to have to go through some unpleasant political processes to establish equitable rights for the citizens of this country. But, it establishes a precedent for telling our government that we are capable of making our own decisions and not willing to bow to their demands when we find them unreasonable.
I heartily encourage the voters of Washington to approve this initiative, despite its warts. The voters of Washington are speaking to the public forum of all of America, not just the lawmakers of their state.
I’ll stop yakking now. You’re all adults and well able to decide for yourselves.
Much love,
J. Wallis
Oregon
Even calling this Initiative “legalization” is a flat out lie. If it were legal, why would I not be able to grow it myself? No, I’d have to depend on the state (seriously??) to supply my cannabis. Not to mention I would only be able to obtain an ounce at a time. Is there a limit on how much alcohol I can purchase in this state? Seems a bit hypocritical that I could buy vodka by the gallon when in reality half that amount would kill me if I drank it in one sitting, whereas I’m only allowed to purchase an ounce of cannabis even though smoking a pound in a sitting wouldn’t do much more than give me a sore throat. I understand the reason you used the word “legalization”; so people don’t read the entire Initiative, they just get excited for the L word and sign away.
Russ,
How do they find THC in ones blood when we use any cannabis, it is bio -transformed into a benign substance carboxy- delta 11.
All the science I have read in which adults play with, show we do not create THC as the cannabis plant does.. in order to violate the CSA.
And when you try and apply the 8 point test required to show the substance can be abused and has medical use or not for scheduling as to justify having the law.. it comes up a bit short don’t you think ??
I know the Michigan supreme court thought so..
Have you read that case Russ, since you point to others to justify 5 ng/ml of blood.
It was an accident case in which the only reason the person was convicted.. was because they said they used cannabis a few days before the accident.. court ruled, the person admitted they used(i.e. causation) even though the court ruled carboxy delta 11 is a benign substance and not a public offense.
I live in a state in Australia that introduced a law in secret that means it is illegal to drive with any amount of illegal drug in your blood. The police also now have the power to march you off to a hospital if they suspect you are impaired. This law, as well as the ramping up of all cannabis penalties recently, was passed with zero, scientific evidence, or public debate. That’s the not quite so scary bit.
Worse still is that if you are in an accident where someone is hospitalized, you must submit to a mandatory blood test even if you did not cause the accident.
The implications of this are possibly enormous. If you smoke pot even once a week you can NEVER legally drive. In the accident scenario, you would lose your license, get no insurance payout and may even be up for for all damages to other property though I am not 100% sure on this last part.
In the case of a death, I would imagine they could charge you with manslaughter even if that smoke had been a week or even a month previous and you weren’t physically at fault or impaired as the law says guilty automatically for that positive blood test. It is difficult to get stats and actual facts here about this as they aren’t published publicly. At least you guys will have some level for all its worth, probably bugger all.
The odds are very low of this scenario, but it is at the back of your mind each time you drive. If this can happen to just one person it should not have been passed. Their response to questioning of this law is the usual “cannabis is illegal and you should not use it anyway”. They don’t care.
As for you guys in the USA, I would probably vote yes then work really hard to have this DUI part deleted based on scientific evidence. Once again we see terrible injustice as a result of stupid politicians who think they know more than scientists. Good luck with this one though.
Get it legal first, the rest is peripheral.
Parole violation is from is 15ng/mL of METABOLITES IN URINE.
Try to understand the science before playing with the adults.
Sorry, nothing’s rigged – try refreshing, dumping cache, creating an account, but I’m not in any way affecting the operation of the WordPress poll widget.
I tried to vote NO on your I-502 poll and it won’t let me do that. It says to pick a valid option so your poll seems a bit rigged. Also tried on a few browsers a few times and have screen shots to show you if you’d like to correct the problem.
If people understood how LOW that level is…it’s tantamount to a DUI policy of half a beer. The legal limit in WA is .08 it would be like saying now its .02.
Ever heard of someone violating parole with a failed marijuana test? They test at 15 ng/mL. There are thousands of people who violate their parole even after not smoking for WEEKS at this level. For these asshats to even suggest (tongue in cheek) that the level should be 5 ng/mL for a DUID…is a FLAT OUT SETUP!
The people suggesting these archaic laws should be drawn & quartered in their own archaic fashion.
This bill is utter garbage and a honey cash trap for the people. This bill has nothing to do with pot and everything to do with generation of funds off DUI’s.
All of you who voted no in this poll and by extension intend to vote no on the initiative need to take a step back and look at the BIG PICTURE here. Yes if passed the DUID portion of I-502 will wrongfully convict citizens. The alternative is defeating the entire initiative, which will set the legalization movement back DECADES. However flawed I-502 is Washington will be the subject of intense scrutiny from the entire country, and we CANNOT send the message that we do not want legalization. A no vote on I-502 because of one small section destroys any hope of legalization anywhere for decades. Do the right thing and take one for the team, vote YES on I-502.
The headlines will only read, “Pot legalized in Washington State.”
The impact of that across the US will be far greater than you can imagine. The details of how poorly written or which areas will have to be repealed/amended, will not be discussed or used as the main counterpoint.
Currently: people outside the activist and law enforcement communities still do not understand what is in the medical bills outside of the idea of pointing at California and thinking every other state is the same. All they really know is that a dozen or more states have legalized medical use. The infighting and word smithing done to argue against things like 19 however did provide wonderful fodder for the press to evangelize the “horrors” of a pot shot on every corner and basically make a mockery of the medical uses of cannabis.
No criticism to Russ or any others who are all fighting for more or less the same thing, but my view is the impact of the headline without the word medical associated with it, is going to change things more than the details you are hammering on.
Yes, I am against the DUID provision. I do not think this provides enough protection to avoid serious conflicts with the feds. I do think that some patients who have taunted authorities will find themselves on an ugly path with law enforcement. But by the time any of that gets sorted, more elections will come up and more people will vote yes and in support of ended the prohibition of cannabis. Whichever state or states can just get this started will see the ability to actually get into the science of it without all the giant sighs and eye rolling that happens now. Every time I discuss the upper end of the basic science and lack of proper discourse on those aspects with the ultra conservatives, they have no vested interest in the topic. Their stance is, “Until it’s legal, there’s nothing to discuss.”
Please, think about voting with the idea that this will legitimize the discussion in a way that even medical has failed to produce.
(In short I would vote yes, because it’s just pure chance right now that keeps *every* responsible cannabis user out of jail. The medical law is not really protecting anyone. Look to California for where the dominos are leaning on this very idea.)
*** Sorry to see NORML having to fight with the people who seem to benefit the most from their cumulative efforts again. This saddens me greatly. I guess we truly are our own worst enemy.
It does affect me personally, as I smoke more than most patients and drive in Washington quite frequently (it’s nine miles away). In fact, I would even TAKE WILLINGLY a DUID conviction in Washington State if it meant ending the arrest of 10,000 of my fellow tokers and beginning the end of prohibition. (My dad had multiple DUIs, it ain’t the end of the world.)
DUI checkpoints are unconstitutional in the state of Washington. http://norml.org/legal/item/washington-drugged-driving?category_id=836
Thanks for bringing facts to the debate, Tim.
As for the medical marijuana community being “at odds” with NORML? Fine. There are 9 tokers for every 1 of you, and 9 more pro-legalization non-tokers for every 1 of you. And we’re getting sick of y’all being a roadblock to legalization while you enjoy 1.5 lbs and 15 plants in relative safety.
WRONG. The chance of getting a contact high in dosage amounts needed to trigger a blood test is negligible. You’d have to be in a small, enclosed room with no ventilation with multiple tokers for hours and then get stopped immediately after driving.
Again, if you can find someone under 21 who has ever gotten a DUI in Washington who never first-hand smoked pot, please let me know. Otherwise, you’re all creating shibboleths to frighten and confuse voters.
Wait, you were already convicted of cannabis DUI under the current laws?
So… having that defense didn’t help you any, did it?
Initiative 502 is a large step backwards for the cannabis reform movement, and its passage would set a negative precedent across the country (pushing other reform efforts into adopting a similarly unethical per se DUID policy, setting up a huge fight potentially years after cannabis is legal).
For one, it’s not legalization. It simply sets up a legal exception in our state code for individuals to possess one ounce, and for certain individuals to be licensed through the state. The latter, and any possibility of a regulated legal market will be rendered invalid given the fact that the initiative is legally faulty. It is absolutely not designed to withstand a federal challenge, and will be rapidly preempted leaving the simple decrim and the per se DUID, which many in the reform movement (including NORML) have fought against for years, and in some instances decades.
For those who say that the DUID provision is no worse than it is currently: under Washington State law, an individual can be prosecuted for driving under the influence of cannabis, if an officer can prove impairment. Under Initiative 502 the law would be altered to be a per se (strict liability) law of 5 ng/ml of THC content in a persons blood (0 ng/ml if you’re under 21, despite the fact you can possess medical cannabis under 21 in our state), which is a number that has absolutely no scientific consensus and science has shown patients and cannabis consumers will fail hours and even days after consuming cannabis (visit patientsagainsti502.org/resources for more information), which has nothing to do with impairment.
Worst off, and one of the biggest reason most of us oppose it so adamantly, is that Initiative 502 refuses to include rebuttable presumption in their strict liability policy. This means that if you’re above their designated limit (which refuses to acknowledge that we all metabolize cannabis at different rates: women and those who are overweight will store active THC longer): you’re instantly guilty of a DUID, and you lose your right to a fair trial, and are given no opportunity to present a legal defense in court, completely ignoring the 6th amendment of our Constitution.
This simply isn’t ethical or scientifically sound policy.
Anthony Martinelli
Volunteer Treasurer
No on I-502 PAC
As a member of NORML I do not want a fatally lawed bill to be the law of the land in WA! If a comprimise could be reached on the DUI portion of the bill, I would support the bill! I have been convicted of DUI for Marijuana under the current laws and it is not a pleasant experience! I will have to vote no on this bill and wait for a properly drafted alternative! I believe we sould be better served to win change to industrial hemp and medical marijuana laws first and then we can make greater strides due o the proven benifits of the plant that will then become common knowledge!
This bill has a zero tolerance provision for minors. This means that kids who get a contact high from being around people legally smoking can get a DUI.
hello, I was recently pulled over in Washington state for a tail light out, and the officer smelled cannabis. I told him I am a patient, and he asked me when I had last smoked. I told him about 8 hours ago, and he replied that I should do my errands in the morning before medicating, making the assumption that I was impaired. He asked me to do some voluntary roadside sobriety tests. I got out of the car, performed some, and then explained to him that I was unable to perform several of the “walk the line” sort of tests because of my disability, my age, that fact that it was windy and raining, and that the road was not level. I told the officer those things, and told him that I didn’t want to fall on my face in the mud. He arrested me, and after my car was searched, which took an hour and a half for the drug dog to arrive, he drove me to the hospital for a blood draw. I was then released from the hospital, and asked not to drive my car.
My active thc came back at 18.3ng, and I was charged with DUI. I hired a DUI lawyer, who charged $3500.00 by the case for DUI’s because they are all about as time consuming. If I took to to court, or some other major time consuming thing, it would have cost more. My lawyer read to me the statements that the arresting officer made, and he made it sound like I could not perform the sobriety tests because I was confused and he had to keep explaing how to do it. I was not confused, I was saying to him I was sure I would fall if I try it, and he should try it to show me if he thinks it was so easy to do on that slope in the rain. My lawyer got the charges reduced to Negligent Driving in the 1st degree, which is much less expensive and invasive than DUI. I would not have that ability to get the charges reduced if I-502 passed, and not only would I have to spend at least a day in jail, my licence would be revoked. I kept reminding the officer he had pulled me over for a tail light out.
I decided I wanted to know what my active thc levels are when I wake up in the morning. I asked a Dr. to draw my blood to have it tested at various intervals so I could know if it would have done me any good to do my errands in the morning as the officer suggested. I gave blood at 11:10 am and had not medicated since 11:30pm the night before. My active thc was 11.7, after not medicating for over 11 hours. I medicated and retested and my active levels after medicating were 41.9 ng active thc. I did a sobriety test, and my reflexes were fine, I have developed a tolerance.
The study that you reference with daily cannabis users is not a study of people that MEDICATE with cannabis. I sometimes eat cannabis, when my pain is so bad that I cannot sleep. I wanted to know how this affected me, so I got blood and sobriety tests after ingesting cannabis the night before. I ate cannabis at 10pm, and also smoked, finishing at 11pm. The following day I tested 20.7ng at 8:30am. I went and medicated and retested and my levels had soared to 147.0 ng of active thc. My sobriety test went fine, my coordination, and recall were great. We stayed that day without more medicating to see what my levels were for 4 hours after medicating ( 24.2 ng ), and 8 hours ( 18.7 ng ) after medicating. The Dr. says that I was not impaired at any time during the day, although my blood level was sure high.
I know that you mean well to try to get this initiative passed for the message it will send. The officer that pulled me over and assumed I was impaired by my admission that I am a patient and that I had smoked earlier in the day was very nice to me. He was not an asshole, although he did not understand our current law. He told me that patients are not able to grow marijuana for themselves, but have to get a care giver to grow it for them. This is not true, but I didn’t take the time to explain the law to the law enforcement officer. My point is that the police officers do not know our current law, what makes you think they will respect our new law? Every traffic stop, every report of a grow is a new opportunity for that particular officer and the scenarios will be varied, including many arrests for things like possessing too much marijuana, or growing the “illegal” weed because the “legal” venues did not materialize.
People that consume cannabis daily may have high levels like me, even if they are not patients. It depends on many variables, like age, bodyweight, sex. I think you are misleading by claiming that it is the rare person that will have legal problems from the DUIC. Have you ever tested yourself, or someone you know to see just what you are talking about? Anyone under the age of 21 who tests with anything above “0″ will be considered impaired, and their license revoked for at least 6 months, as well as jail time, and a hefty fine. Seriously, Russ, how can you be alright with that? I am an activist who has fought for changing our laws for 17 years, beginning with a hemp store in 1995. I am one of the principal people in Patients Against I502. I support legalization of cannabis through sensible methods, like Sensible Washington. As a mother, one of my prime complaints with I-502 is this very point, what about the children? How can you and any of the other principled organizations in our country that has been trying to change our laws for years find allowing “0″ ng for drivers under the age of 21? Do you think that it will be as rare as a problem for those under 21 as you do for patients?
I wouldn’t pass if it was 50ng/ml. I have been a medical marijuana patient since ’99. I have been a patient in California, Washington State and Oregon. I simply cannot believe that anyone would ask me to sacrifice my ability to get around or my abiliy to get my kids around for your recreational use of marijuana which will then lead to your inability to do the same. If you pass a law that harms so many people you need to understand that it is not a positive thing for the community. We will fight it. By supporting this bill NORML is putting itself at odds with the medical marijuana community. It isn’t too uncommon for that to happen but in this case it is losing them all kinds of support from us. We are VERY opposed to this bill. And if you are unaware, law enforcement and prosecutors have been putting the word out about DUI checkpoints ever since the announcement of this bill in Washington State. We are not interested in draconian laws.
1)502 will wrongfully convict unimpaired drivers of DUI, negatively impacting peoples right to live independently.
2) Plato said – Just as it would be madness to settle on medical treatment for the body of a person by taking an opinion poll of the neighbors, so it is irrational to prescribe for the body politic by polling the opinions of the people at large.
What’s not to understand Russ – if it weren’t some objective theory, if you were able to vote on it would you still feel the same? or it’s ok as long as it doesn’t affect you personally?
I-502 was created to in fact jail MORE cannabis users. not only that but to take away money from the patient run dispensaries and give it to the state and the wealthy I-502 backers.
thats a cute story but we both know that there are plenty of studies that prove otherwise. sure I have 10k but I’d never give it to some pig. that’s why I have a greencard. why can’t I grow my own now? I have a medical authorization to grow 15 plants. Also I have the luxury of going to any of the hundred+ dispensaries here in the puget sound. why would I want that to change? I’ve never heard of anybody getting their blood checked after they are found with pot, but I guarantee if this law passes every person with a roach will get tested and fined.
Finally you can write NOW NOW NOW in all caps like a child and make radical statements like;
“Jesus, it’s like you people think I-502 is inventing DUI cannabis! The fact is most people arrested for DUI cannabis NOW get convicted.”
BUT Exactly how many people were convicted of DUI cannabis in Washington state last year? Answer me that ol Rusty. That is if the people paying you to support I-502 will let you post such a miniscule number.
@Sean,
“I still keep Hammering out the fact that the United States Military has a 15 ng/ml cutoff limit for confirmation.”
That’s 15 ng/mL of the inactive metabolite delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol-9-carboxylic acid, also known as carboxy-THC (THC-COOH). That’s the metabolite that can hang out in your system for days or even weeks, depending on your usage, and foul you up on an employment urine screening. It is not the psychoactive THC to which I-502′s DUI provision applies.
The source of the federal workplace drug testing standards is Mandatory Guidelines for Federal Workplace Drug Testing Programs, published by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA). A table of the current federal cutoff standards is available here: http://www.workplace.samhsa.gov/DrugTesting/pdf/2010GuidelinesAnalytesCutoffs.pdf.
Alison Holcomb
Campaign Director
New Approach Washington
Maybe the military cutoff level may not be indicative of impairment, I may be going out on a limb here, but seeing that there is background sources of cannabinoids other than Cannabis. The reason they set a cutoff limit is to be sure that there is no chance of testing positive from any background sources. Every plant and tree grown on the surface or under the water has some cannabinoids in it. It just so happens that Cannabis has them in much higher concentrations than any other plant.
Whoa, I hadn’t thought of that!
Yes, we’d be making a 5ng presumption of impairment, and, despite it being unscientific, unnecessary, and unjust, it at least provides a number below which you’d be “legally stoned” (like when we say someone below 0.08 BAC is “legally drunk” – inaccurate, but you get the meaning.)
So, even MORE tokers, the ones who toked a while ago and then drove and got popped at below 5ng, would gain extra protection, at the cost of the extremely rare person who’s above 5ng after not smoking a while getting a conviction on a DUI charge that would likely have resulted in a conviction anyway with a reading that high.
@Kari:
“It is actually the risk – or more precisely, the liklihood of conviction which is greater. Wouldn’t that be more accurate?”
Only if your blood test comes back at 5 ng/mL or higher. If it comes back lower, the likelihood of conviction goes down because jurors will have a guideline for impairment they don’t currently have. Right now, Washington drivers are being convicted for DUI with tests showing less than 5 ng/mL active THC concentration (and even no active THC but only the inactive metabolite carboxy-THC).
If you watched the hearing on Rep. Dickerson’s HB 2454, you may recall the testimony of Senior Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Amy Freedheim. She obtained a vehicular assault conviction on the basis of a 1.6 ng/mL test. A 5 ng/mL guideline might have made that conviction tougher to obtain.
Alison Holcomb
Campaign Director
New Approach Washington
Ahhh, there you go again… “just because someone wants to get high”
Who died and made you arbiter of whose pot use is moral? You exhibit that condition I call “Patient Entitlement Syndrome”, the notion that just because you’re sick, your use of cannabis is morally superior to mine. That somehow, locking you up for your use is more cruel because you “need” cannabis while I just “want” it.
Hey, just because we’re healthy does not mean we should not be allowed to live just like every one else, without fear of wrongful incrimination or arrest just because some sick person who smokes pot all damn day wants to drive. How’s that sound?
Do you really want us to pass our laws based on the what-if scenarios of what the most asshole cop might do? Under this nightmare scenario, cops could be doing that RIGHT NOW with a DUI cannabis charge. In fact, asshole cops do that RIGHT NOW with the freakin’ possession charge itself – you don’t have to even be driving!
Jesus, it’s like you people think I-502 is inventing DUI cannabis! The fact is most people arrested for DUI cannabis NOW get convicted.
Well, there we have it. You think I and 10,000 others should be put in a cage for our pot use if there is even the slightest negligible chance you’ll get a DUI. Thanks for your honesty.
Now, tell me, Mimi, as a terminal patient in the end stages of your disease:
1) How long have you been driving in Washington State?
2) How many times have you been pulled over?
3) How many times was your blood drawn?
If your patients are giving up their driving privileges if I-502 passes, then it is only because you’re fostering the scaremongering and not informing them of the risk they are taking NOW if they are driving. Have you any studies on the effect of a long DUI trial on an already ill patient? How about some stats on the effect of spending $10,000 on DUI attorney if you’re an already ill patient?
As it is, 90% of DUID cannabis prosecutions (in Colorado, I’ll have Washington stats soon) result in a conviction, even without a per se DUID statute in place. So you are, in essence, telling patients they have to vote no to keep me out of a cage to protect their 10% chance of getting out of DUID most of them will never be charged with.
And again, remember you are talking to 530,000 annual Washington tokers who can be put in a cage for 24 hours for merely possessing a gram of marijuana and telling them they should accept that for unknown more years to protect the 10% chance of getting out of a DUID after being stopped by a cop who suspects impairment of a person who smokes weed all day every day and has been safe from prosecution for possession of up to a pound and a half of weed and growing fifteen plants for the past thirteen years. And in some cases, that person who smokes weed all day every day has all sorts of taxpayer-funded transportation options we healthy tokers have to pay for.
And once again, gee, where’s all these “caregivers” who are so plentiful when it comes time to selling weed… couldn’t they give your terminal patients a ride to the store? You know, actually “give care”…
There would still be a defense in that the lawyer you spend $10,000 on could bring up evidentiary motions, like the test was handled improperly, or procedural violations, like the cop didn’t Mirandize you or some such thing.
But you are correct that, assuming cops and prosecutors dotted all the is and crossed all the ts, you can’t get your DUID charge reduced.
However, as the situation exists now, it is rare (<10%) chance your lawyer can get that charged reduced, especially if you’re tested at above 5ng/mL.
So, Mimi, what do you think about the fallacy of cannabis being illegal for adults to use responsibly? That is an unscientific law, too, and it harms far more people far more often than does the unscientific proposal of a per se DUID. Do you think 10,000 innocent Washingtonians getting arrested as drug criminals is disgusting? Even if they are healthy?
Nobody here is disputing that ng/mL testing as a sole determinant of impairment is unscientific, unfair, and unjust. I’d prefer it wasn’t in the I-502 language; however, having that in the language persuades more legalization opponents to vote for it.
Yes, I-502 fixes one giant unscientific issue (cannabis is dangerous and people who have it should be caged!) and creates one smaller unscientific issue (cannabis in your blood always means you’re impaired). It ushers in a greater good while establishing a lesser bad. That’s POLITICS and sometimes it sucks and leads to difficult choices. For instance, President Obama passed health care reform that is largely good (no denial for pre-existing conditions, kids on parents’ insurance til age 26, etc.) but establishes a lesser bad (mandate to buy private insurance). President Clinton failed to deliver on those larger goods because the insurance industry took him down, so President Obama learned from the mistake and gave the insurance industry that lesser bad to dilute their opposition. Very rarely do you get to vote for something that’s all good and no bad. Rarer still are those “all good” measures that actually pass.
One greater good of I-502 is the combination of “legal weed” and “money to study it”. If you really want to debunk the Reefer Madness, you need scientists studying it. I-502 directs money to UW and WSU to study marijuana and its users, and with the ability to possess weed legally, that’s a whole lot easier to accomplish.
It would be nice if we could snap our fingers and instantly convince a majority of Washington voters who know nothing about cannabis science that legalizing everyone use of weed won’t lead to mayhem on the freeways. It would be nice if we could immediately convince the voters that people who smoke pot all damn day know when they’re sober enough to drive. But right NOW, voters son’t think that way – they fear mayhem and stoned drivers.
So you can be all principled and try to beat the science into the voters’ thick skulls so they’ll support your “perfect legalization” in… what year was it you had planned to secure hundreds of thousands in funding, gather hundreds of thousands of signatures, and place “perfect legalization” on the ballot, Mimi? Well, however many years away that is, multiply by the 10,000 small-time possession arrests that will happen (of course, not to patients, so maybe you don’t care).
Or, you can hold your nose, support an imperfect legalization that will lead to more of the science you need to beat into voter’s thick skulls so they’ll support the “remove per se DUID” initiative you’ll run in… again, what year, Mimi?
Russ says, “See, right NOW, driving with cannabis in your blood is illegal. If you’re suspected of DUID and blood is taken, ANY ng/mL is evidence to be used against you in court.
That’s where the $10,000 lawyer comes in. He/she files all sorts of motions to get your charge reduced from DUID to reckless or inattentive driving. That’s what you’re paying the lawyer for.
But with a per se standard, there’s no way to get your charge reduced. There’s nothing the lawyer can do. So he’d have less billable hours to charge you for.”
So, what you are saying is that I-502 makes a significant change to the DUI laws which will, in effect, keep Washington residents from presenting a defense in court since “…there’s no way to get your charge reduced. There’s nothing the lawyer can do.” Am I interpreting this correctly, Russ?
And right now in Washington patients can raise a defense, at least, and be found not guilty. With 502 that will cease to happen.
Maybe you can read about titration and tolerance of medication. I’ve tried to educate people and I’ve included the links, but bottom line is this: Many of the cannabis patients that I work with will give up their driving privileges, by threat of the DUI statute, so they will not get arrested. Would you like me to find statistics to what happens when an already ill patient becomes homebound? Because there are A TON of them.
And do you realize what happens to many of those homebound, sick people? They get a LOT sicker. And then the costs for their care skyrocket. And then something worse. They die. So yeah, I would choose you going to jail over possession rather than see sick people die. I am a home health nurse, and a terminal patient in the end stages of my disease, and I still drive and I am not impaired.
And I don’t want to be locked up in my own home or in jail for a crime I did not commit!
I think you’ll find the Drug Czar is opposing I-502. Sorry to wreck your conspiracy theory.
Also, when there is a per se standard, that is actually LESS employment for lawyers. (Not to mention, 10,000 possession cases they won’t be taking because possession is LEGAL.)
See, right NOW, driving with cannabis in your blood is illegal. If you’re suspected of DUID and blood is taken, ANY ng/mL is evidence to be used against you in court.
That’s where the $10,000 lawyer comes in. He/she files all sorts of motions to get your charge reduced from DUID to reckless or inattentive driving. That’s what you’re paying the lawyer for.
But with a per se standard, there’s no way to get your charge reduced. There’s nothing the lawyer can do. So he’d have less billable hours to charge you for.
It’s the CURRENT cannabis DUID standard that keeps lawyers busy.
So, you don’t think that LEO won’t hold a cannabis DUI charge over your head to name your illegal source of pot?
Let’s count the ways that these indefensible DUI statutes can be exploited by Law Enforcement to coerce information against illegal suppliers of this so called “legal” ounce…
This would be a very scary scenario if, after I-502 passes, cops were going door-to-door and seizing the driver’s licenses of anyone with a medical marijuana recommendation. This would be frightening if the DMV had a database of every medical marijuana recommendation and refused to issue driver’s licenses to anyone who has a recommendation.
But NOBODY is risking the legal driving privilege of patients to any greater degree than their legal driving privilege is at risk NOW.
You people seem to think that as a patient, driving around with THC in your blood is perfectly legal. It ain’t. If you’re saying your patients are never below 5ng/mL, you are saying they are illegal drivers right NOW. Any amount of THC in your blood is evidence to use against you in a DUID charge.
And Mimi, I AM ONE of the people who’d likely not be below 5ng/mL. I know, I’m healthy, so you don’t think much about me. So if you do defeat I-502, I’d like you to try a mandatory 24 hours in a jail cell that 10,000 Washingtonians will get next year for simply possessing – not driving with – a gram of weed. Then I’d like you to try a year of living in fear every moment you’re out and about with weed on your person – after thirteen years of being safe from prosecution while holding a pound and a half and growing 15 plants, it might open your eyes a bit to the terrorism 530,000 healthy Washingtonians still live with.
Gina, how many times in the past ten years have you been pulled over by a cop and taken to a hospital for a blood draw to determine a DUID?
What you fail to acknowledge is that you can get that 5ng/mL DUID RIGHT NOW. If you’re pulled over, and a cop suspects impairment not on alcohol, and you fail a field sobriety test, and he takes you on an hour’s drive and processing to the hospital, and they draw your blood, and it’s at 5ng/mL, guess what? That’s going to be entered into evidence in your DUID trial and will likely lead to your DUID conviction unless you have $10,000 or more to hire a good lawyer, have decent evidence to prove you weren’t impaired (something to mitigate your failing that field sobriety test and that 5ng/mL reading), and get lucky enough to get a judge who will listen.
So if you’re worried about a per se DUID after I-502 passes, you shouldn’t be driving NOW unless you have video dashcams and $10,000 on hand to get you out of the DUID you’re committing NOW.
I plan on voting yes because I don’t think you should go to jail for holding pot.
As for bias… uh, our whole mission is to promote marijuana legalization. How could we NOT be biased in favor of an initiative that legalizes marijuana?
It’s not exactly “out of their arse”. Studies by Grotenherman et al found a significant increase in crash risk at 5ng-10ng/mL of THC in blood.
Now, the problem with that study is that we’re talking largely about casual users. Take a once-a-month toker and get him higher than 5ng and he’s more likely to crash. The problem is we don’t have much data on the crash risk of chronic smokers who may have developed a tolerance above 5ng/mL and drive quite well.
But here’s where science meets up with politics. Do you want to be the legalization proponent trying to explain to the scared soccer mom, “You see that guy who smokes pot all day every day? Relax, he can drive just fine.” It may be true, but it would be political suicide.
Adding this per se DUID got 62% of the public to support legalization in a poll, whereas it lost only 11% of the public. So they made the pragmatic decision to do something approved of by 51% of the voters. That’s the sausage-making of politics.
And it’s irrelevant to compare a military-entrance cutoff to a DUID standard anyway.
Here’s Washington’s implied consent law, RCW 46.20.308: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=46.20.308. Blood draws are allowed only after (1) probable cause for an arrest [and after I-502 passes, possession of an ounce will no longer constitute probable cause for arrest], plus (2) reasonable grounds [i.e., objective evidence] to believe the person was driving while impaired, plus (3) reasonable grounds [again, objective evidence] to believe the impairment was caused by a drug and not alcohol. Requirements 1 and 2 are covered under subsection (1) of RCW 46.20.308; requirement 3 is covered under subsection (2). If the person refuses the blood test, the police can obtain a warrant.
The vehicular homicide, etc. language appears in subsection (3). These are grounds for taking the blood test without a warrant if the person refuses or is incapable of providing consent.
In other words, not the standard of “Hey, look, a pot smoker!” that No on I-502 would have you believe.
I have a terminal illness, and I still drive. I know many others who do as well, and I worked in home health as a nurse case manager for years, so yes, there ARE a lot of patients with terminal illnesses who drive.
Just because we are dying does not mean we should not be allowed to live just like everyone else, without fear of wrongful incrimination or arrest just because someone wants to get high.
http://wasafecannabis.com/misc/why-thc-blood-level-testing-does-not-work
In order to understand impairment from thc, one must first understand about two very important words: tolerance and titration. Let’s start with tolerance. In the medical field, we look at two main things:
“tolerance /tol·er·ance/ (tol´er-ans)
1. diminution of response to a stimulus after prolonged exposure.
2. the ability to endure unusually large doses of a poison or toxin.”
http://medical-dictionary.thefreediction…)
What this means is that after being exposed to a medication over the course of time, you don’t have effects as strong as when you first began to take said medication. It also means that over time one is able to take larger and larger doses, due to the decrease in effects.
Now we look at titration.
“titration (t?tr?´shn),
n incremental increase in drug dosage to a level that provides the optimal therapeutic effect.” (Taken from the same site as tolerance definition) What this means is that a patient is started on a small dose of medication and that dose is increased, either in amount or frequency or both, over time, so that the patient “tolerates” the dose without having a lot of problems with side effects.
Cannabis is one of those meds which can be titrated and to which tolerances can develop. What is important to understand about all of this is that you cannot measure impairment (which is a side effect of many medications) by taking blood from a patient who has developed a tolerance to these higher medication dosages. It just does not work using the science we know today. Different patients on different doses will have different tolerance and impairment levels, and a fair and logical standard cannot be set using a standard blood level. There is far too much variation in the levels of titrated patients who show a tolerance to cannabis and absolutely no impairment.
And that is what it says in every study NAW cites. And as a professional in the medical field, I am appalled that the science of cannabis would be completely ignored and Reefer Madness continues to rear it’s ugly head. Perpetuating these fallacies when the science is quite clear is irresponsible at best. Using it to make criminals out of the innocent is disgusting. Using it to exchange one bad law for another is political diversion tactics, something most of us are really sick and tired of seeing.
I will not stop telling the truth!
You’re absolutely wrong.
Karschner et al tested 25 daily users of cannabis. All had admitted to smoking between 1-10 blunts or a “dime” to an ounce PER DAY.
Of the 25, only 1 tested above 5ng/mL. She had smoked four blunts that day and tested at 7ng.
The next day after not toking, she tested at 2.9ng.
Of the other 24, the next highest level at admission was 2ng. One guy had smoked AN OUNCE that day and didn’t even register ANY ng.
Of ALL 25, NONE had levels above 2.9ng on DAY TWO. After an entire WEEK, none had levels above 5ng/mL and 19 had NO DETECTION of ng at all.
Also, you can’t grow your own NOW.
Finally, the standard cops need to take your blood does not change, Dom. So if you’re driving around Washington NOW, you are at as much risk NOW as you would be after I-502. Do you have $10,000, Dom? That’s what it will cost you NOW to defend yourself against that DUID you’re risking NOW.
Maybe there will be pot stores, maybe there won’t. So let’s take your worst-case: feds enjoin pot stores and there’s no legal place to get weed.
How does that change this scenario for recreational users? There’s no legal place for us to get our weed NOW.
So, today, I go to my illegal dealer and get an ounce. Cop stops me and finds my ounce. I go to jail, 24 hours minimum.
But tomorrow, when I-502 passes, I go to my illegal dealer and get an ounce. Cop stops me and finds my ounce. I DO NOT GO TO JAIL!
(You’re probably buying into that false assertion that “no legal stores = no legal ounces”, and that just ain’t true. The statute legalizes possession, period, it makes no distinction of how you came into possession.)
As for the “most vulnerable patients”, the “terminal illnesses”… do you realize that sounds like you’re saying “cancer patients on their deathbed won’t be able to drive”. Are there really that many terminally ill people driving around all the time? And whatever happened to these “caregivers”? Why is it when it comes time to sell weed from a storefront at a profit, there are more “caregivers” than you can shake a stick at, but when it comes time to actually give care, like driving a terminally ill patient around town, “caregivers” are so hard to find?
Hey, if your conscience can handle voting the way the Drug Czar, the cops, and the Mexican drug gangs would want you to vote, and your conscience can handle knowingly condemning at least 16,000 people per year to marijuana arrests, go right ahead and vote no on I-502. Gil Kerlikowske thanks you for your support of a Drug Free America.
You know, I’m getting sick of this continued parsing of “legalization”. For me, legalization is pretty simple: If I am smoking a joint at home, can cops break down my door and put me in a cage?
Pre I-502: YES
Post I-502: NO
So it’s legalization. In fact, here’s what legalization is:
Something that is not a violation of the law is something that is LEGAL.
I’d like to see home grows, too. But that would be legalization of cultivation of marijuana, not legalization of marijuana. I-502 polled and found home grows would have cost too many soccer mom votes; they want to be sure there are controls over pot growing. I’ll tell you this, it’s going to be a lot easier to argue for personal home grows as legal consumers than as criminals.
As for the “self-incrimination”, that would be at the federal level, as at the state level it would be legal. But why are we so supportive of the quasi-legal dispensaries that risk federal raids to provide weed to patients, but so chicken to risk federal raids to provide weed to the healthy? If a cannabis entrepreneur wants to take that risk, why not? Don’t you think at some point, somebody is going to have to take this fight to the feds?
That’s just not true.
Cops won’t have a “field day”. You act as if cops are going to get this magic list of every medical marijuana patient’s license plates and set up stakeouts to pull each and every one of them over, at which point a doctor on the roadside will draw blood, put it in a DUIDometer, and throw patients by the busload into the hoosegow. It just ain’t so.
First of all – Washington has no roadside sobriety checkpoints – it’s against the state constitution.
Second – cops can’t just pull you over without cause and start drawing your blood. Your bodily integrity is well protected by the Constitution and cops have to clear a pretty high bar before they can just take your blood. I-502 does not change the standards cops must meet to require a blood draw, which is your demonstration of impairment on something other than alcohol.
In other words, Patrick, how many times have cops drawn your blood in the past ten years? Well, that is exactly the same chance you’re going to have your blood drawn after I-502. The CHANCE you’ll get your blood drawn is the same, it is only the certainty of your punishment that changes under I-502.
In other other words, Patrick, right now in Washington ANY amount of THC in your blood is evidence that can be used in a DUID trial, and believe me, if you came back above 5ng/mL NOW, you’re going to be convicted of a DUID unless you have $10,000 or more to pay a DUID lawyer. If you’re driving NOW, you’re driving as a felon.
Mimi – the first time you or anybody posts a comment, it is held in a moderation queue. I will only delete or not post comments if they are off-topic, hate-speech, or spam. Sorry it took me until 10am today to get to the comments.
Go ahead, don’t post our comments. It just makes you look even worse than what you already do, and that is looking really bad right now.
Seems to me that this DUI provision with such a low threshold of 5ng/mL will only replace the problem of people being arrested for possession of a controlled substance to a DUI which is a felony? The police will have a field day pulling over, testing and arresting every cannabis patient in the state. If you live in Washington, are a medical cannabis patient, and drive to the grocery store, you will be arrested, jailed, fined, and be forced to carry a record for the rest of your life. This American approach to drug policy creates more problems then it solves. We must do the research, get the facts, and then base our policies on sound scientific knowledge. I for one would never live in a state in which I would be considered a felon every time I drove my car. 5ng/mL is an outrage. Replacing one crime with another. I am against this approach.
Russ, your poll is only “loaded” in the sense that you connect the word “legalize” with I-502. More appropriately, I-502 creates a “legal exception” for possession of up to one ounce. Maybe we need a discussion on the definition of “legalization”, but to me, this is decriminalization, in that personal home grows are not allowed for non-medical use; after federal preemption, there will be no legal means for anyone to obtain product.
In order to establish a “legal” cannabis business under I-502, the applicant would subject themselves to self-incrimination, which is unconstitutional; and state regulatory agents will subject themselves to aiding and abetting the manufacture and distribution of federally controlled substance, in addition to money laundering – but none of this matters since I-502 will not escape the federal supremacy clause! New Approach Washington will not have their day in court, it will simply be thrown out. All we may be left with is a one ounce decrim, and this sh*tty DUI statute.
Radical Russ has one thing right (sort of) in his poll question; voting on I-502 is a choice between a 1 ounce decrim, VS. creating new DUI laws that law enforcement can exploit to target and profile medical marijuana patients. I will not stand for the creation of new laws that unfairly target any responsible adult use of cannabis – which I-502 does – and why I am against it. Supporters of I-502 need to understand – there will, (sorry for all caps): BE NO LEGAL MEANS OF OBTAINING MARIJUANA FOR RECREATIONAL USE IF I-502 PASSES!!!
Passing I-502 means that people who can be charged under current law for possession (of up to an ounce) will still have to buy from the illegal black market, or exploit the state’s medical cannabis laws, only to receive an affirmative defense. This is in trade for implementing an unnecessary DUID statute that unfairly targets some of the most vulnerable among us – the patients – people facing terminal illness. For me, this choice boils down to choosing between recreational users, or the sick & dying; given this choice, I will favor patients every time.
I resent being pigeon-holed to the assertion that by voting “No” on I-502, that I somehow side with the prohibitionists, when anyone that is aware of the work I do in this movement, that assertion is demonstrably FALSE! I did not write the current laws, and I have dedicated years of my life to fixing them, so that weight cannot be held over my head.
I-502 is a poorly written initiative, it is that simple! Please vote your conscious, but understand what you are voting for, or against.
wow hopefully the real vote doesn’t go this bad or I’ll be looking at moving to another state so I can still drive a car. Daily users would fail the test up to a week after abstaining and you don’t have the right to defend yourself in court or grow your own. you’ve got to be f$%king retarded to vote yes on this.
What are the strict guidelines for them taking your blood?
jailing responsible cannabis users is where I draw the line. I would vote yes. Go WA and CO.
I still keep Hammering out the fact that the United States Military has a 15 ng/ml cutoff limit for confirmation. In essence the US Military requires 3 times the limit proposed by I-502 for impairment, to consider one of it’s soldiers to have failed a test for THC.
Sounds like whoever thought of that number, just pulled it out of their arse.
Wow Russ way to overreact. This poll and article are biased like almost all of 502s coverage by NORML. This may be NORMLs “house” but it is your supporters money not yours, you could at least try to show some humility. 502 has a lot of flaws besides the DUiD provision. I plan on voting no mostly because I don’t think that I should go to jail for driving sober
And I agree with Kari, this poll is so Biased. You say you want to know what people would vote but to read your description, makes it sound like the DUID section is no big deal. IT IS A VERY BIG DEAL.. Especially if You are the one stopped. “A Few DUIDs” Seriously? Oh My Goodness.. Sad very sad to lead people to believe they won’t get busted for DUID with 5ng. Very Sad indeed.
I use Cannabis in VERY high Doses, Taken at night when I sleep Every Night.. I Know for a fact.. that even if I did not consume anything for a week. My THC Content would be a lot higher than 5ng. I Will be Voting NO!
I’m voting NO, because as a Registered Nurse with almost 20 years of experience, mostly in the field of home health, I know exactly what this will do. No one is considering the economic impact of taking away the legal driving privilege of so many. And I don’t just mean added costs, which will be immense, I am also talking about the loss of health and the loss of life.
As a nurse case manager, one of the major concerns for the homebound patient is lack of social interaction. Even going to the doctor can be a major accomplishment, with having to arrange for rides and face getting stranded, or trying to wait in the freezing cold when you don’t tolerate temperature extremes. The disabled bus won’t guarantee a seat or a pickup time in most places, and patients have often been left waiting in front of the doctor’s office or the grocery store for hours. Oh, and now a trip to the grocery store means only the amount you can carry from wherever you catch a ride or get dropped off.
It’s easier to stay home than get stranded. So they miss a few doctor appointments, maybe don’t get to the lab on time, and rely on a neighbor to pick up food. And now they aren’t eating so well and they already aren’t healthy, so it usually means a trip to the ER within 3-6 months for the chronically ill patient, and each stay they get weaker, and go out less. And eventually, many of them die, often within the first year.
So Russ, you lock yourself up and away from society and tell me it’s okay to do that to someone who is dying. You try it first and see how it feels, cuz I can tell you it really sucks. And I will not stop saying that until I-502 is defeated!
Karl, if you are sober but have a joint in your car now, you will be arrested.
All the former prosecutors who came out in favor of 502 should tell you …. 502 is a police sting! You ARE voting with the undercover enemy. Dude. You look like a NARC to me.
A whole new prohibition…… driving – SOBER – with the wrong blood count. Full employment for lawyers. Drug Czar laughing all the way to the bank.
Its CA’s Prop 19 all over again but this time its the average Joe’s that are being arrested for possession of under an ounce that want this to pass. I would say every one should be for this unless you are saying that the added risk ,if you drive right after smoking, of DUI is worth more that finally getting a bill pass that will start the Snow Ball effect of bringing the end to the War on Marijuana? We need to start with one state that will pass a Law to Legalize Marijuana and it does not have to be perfect it can be amended later after the public has seen that there is not going to an influx of Stoned Drivers to worry about. Besides look at the crack down and closers that happened after 19 failed.
It saddens me as an activist and a human being to hear the derision being offered by a handfull of the medical community here in the State of Washington, who meme and replicate the opinions of a few. I wonder how many of those who vehemently oppose I 502 have, in the past year, been pulled over or involved in an automobile accident when an officer had probable cause to search your car for marijuana, request a blood draw for THC and/or arrest you for a marijuana DUI?
Of the 3,000 + constituents that support NORML’s mission through association with the WANORML State Affiliate, the vast majority of our members overwhelmingly support I – 502.
-Kevin Oliver, Executive Director, Washington NORML
I don’t get the percentage of votes. This is a horrific idea–it only invites more scrutiny and arrests.
I wonder how many of the handful of patients who vehemently oppose I-502 have, in the past year, been pulled over or involved in an automobile accident when an officer had probable cause to search your car for marijuana, request a blood draw for THC and/or arrest you for a marijuana DUI? Anyone? With over 3,000 members, the constituency of Washington NORML overwhelmingly supports I-502. The angry rants and nonsensical chants of people getting “thrown under” some kind of a bus with the passage of I-502 by the PANAW folks only serves the choir of those angry patients – who somehow seem to know what is best for everyone else – and scares away the majority of voters for whom they are trying to reach.
It saddens me, personally, as an activist and human being, to see such hate eminating from a handful of patients in this state who oppose I-502, drunk with passion and pride, meme and replicate this type of derision.
Thanks for the clarification, Russ. The article seemed to lead those taking to poll to vote yes… but you are right, all things considered, it was generous of you to offer the poll at all.
Just one more thing, I don’t think the punishment for DUI is any greater under I-502. It is actually the risk – or more precisely, the liklihood of conviction which is greater. Wouldn’t that be more accurate? The way I read it, it’s the definition of the crime of DUI itself that changes under I-502, which is what leads to the increased risk due to a more likely conviction. I thought it was this increased risk/liklihood of conviction that caused NORML to oppose per se DUI in the past, but I could be wrong.
The poll isn’t loaded. The poll question says “Washington’s I-502 legalizes an ounce but creates a 5ng/mL per se DUID. Would you vote for it? Yes or No.”
The article preceding this poll? Did I not present opponents’ concerns about innocent drivers being convicted? I didn’t present any conjecture not based in fact (it was 28 and 6 years between legalization votes, for instance). I did present my personal stand at the end, that part is certainly biased. However, the poll question alone appears on the sidebar of this blog; the article only appears on this post. Far more people will see and vote on that then see this article.
Still… this is NORML’s house. I’m using NORML supporters’ money and resources to present this poll. NORML supports I-502. I didn’t have to run this poll at all, and some at NORML would prefer I didn’t. But I recognize this as a valid point of discussion and a controversy among some in the community, and I believe in free speech and that I have eight months to show people who might be swayed by our opposition (be they drug czars or “true legalizers”) that the overall good is served by I-502, the DUID risks aren’t any greater than they are now (the punishment, yes, the risk, no), and partial legalization is closer to true legalization than no legalization.
Could this question have been any more loaded? NORML could have at least TRIED to present the poll in an unbiased fashion. C’mon guys.
Le sigh. I am voting NO. It’s not an easy choice for me, but I can’t get past the thought of convicting unimpaired drivers of DUI. I can choke down almost any other compromise thrown at me, but jailing sober drivers for DUI is where I had to draw the line.
Bummer.