According to “SMOKE and MIRRORS” author DAN BAUM, EGIL KROGH and DON SANTARELLI were the primary creators of the Congressional Act that resulted in the IL-legal and UN-constitutional arrest, prosecution, conviction, and punishment of hundreds of thousands of American men and women for a combined millions of years in federal gulags for conduct alleged, admitted, or found to be; “[i]n violation of Title 21, United States Code, Section 841(a)(1)” in the most repugnant FRAUD ever conducted by a government against its own people in the History of the World and;I can’t help but wonder, will EGIL KROGH’S JESUS forgive Mr. KROGH for continuing to remain SILENT while this manifest miscarriage of justice continues?
Marijuana and Cannabis News
| Photo: Douglas Hiatt |
| Douglas Hiatt: "It is not legalization, and it is going to criminalize patients in this state" |
| Photo: THC Finder |
| Photo: AP |
| Alison Holcomb, New Approach Washington: "I'd also add that advocating for proposals that Washington voters will not pass ... is not a viable path to legalization" |
More links from around the web!
IDENTIFY, "WITH CERTAINTY AND PRECISION", ANY CONGRESSIONAL ENACTED FEDERAL STATUTE THAT WOULD PROHIBIT, FORBID, OR MAKE IT UNLAWFUL FOR ANY PERSON AT RANDOM TO BUY, SELL, USE, OR ABUSE, CABBAGE, COCAINE, MARIJUANA, MELONS, HEROIN, HOT-DOGS, OR CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES AND i WILL CONTRIBUTE $50 BUCKS TO YOUR CAMPAIGN. SHOW ME!
The arguments against NAW seem very self centered and unrealistic. Passing this initiative will strike a huge blow against marijuana prohibition. The public is very concerned about impaired driving - as they should be. Most marijuana users can ddrive just fine most of the time but there are plenty of examples of marijuana impaired drivers causing accidents and hurting people. I have personally been in vehicles with stoned drivers who were definitely impaired and it was scary. I also drive after consuming cannabis almost every day of my life. If a driver is not impaired the chances that they will be tested are slim. The idea that NAW will prevent patients from driving is hysteria. Ending cannabis prohibition is one of the most important political issues of our times. The progress toward human rights it will bring far outweighs the criticisms outlined here. Get past your self centered paranoid fears. I will weep with joy when this initiative passes!
Please provide links to your evidence of " plenty of examples of marijuana impaired drivers causing accidents and hurting people."A per se limit that if when tested, is exceeded by patients in almost every case, will end up with them losing their privilege to drive. That is hardly hysteria. I agree that ending prohibition is one of the most important issues of our time. But doing it without detriment to society is more important than doing it in a flawed way that doesn't eliminate the black market. That is clear thinking, not self centered paranoia. I will weep with joy when we take cannabis away from drug dealers, cartels and end the associated violence as we did with alcohol when that prohibition ended.
I-505 will allow that to happen. I-502 will not.
Passing this initiative will (through the tax mechanism) quadruple prices and thereby encourage the contraband market. People will resist such exorbitant pricing by continuing to frequent the contraband sellers, who will now charge more because that is what the market will bear.
Consider instead allowing home grows for everyone that wishes to have them as well as shops where the general public can purchase as they would other legitimate products at regular levels of taxation. Those that grow at home will no longer be putting money into the contraband market. That money will be spent on (or saved for) things of legitimate value. From shoes for the kids to new durable goods to college education, the money will churn in the legitimate economy creating jobs and contributing to the sales tax base in ways more beneficial than the narrow structure and excessive pricing I-502 proposes. Those that choose to buy at the stores will have easy access (with ID) to regulated products.
Successful reform of Cannabis law must remove the profit motive for contraband producers, lower the price to free up cash for other legitimate expenditures and free the public from threat of arrest for a benign substance.
You guys all stupid. It's already illegal for patients to drive with marijuana in their blood - any amount! Also, this initiative isn't going to take away any rights of patients to grow their own and/or possess their 60 day supply. Come on Hiatt - stop the reefer madness.
Alison Holcomb, half truths will not win you any support. Length of incarceration doubles for those providing to minors at least 3 years junior, less than 3 years difference will result in standard penalties for adults providing for minors. All the facts please, not just those that slant in a way designed to confuse rather that inform.
Anthony Martinelli, I-1149 is done. Alison is referencing I-505, although your comment is true in regards to that as well.
Who is this Doug hiatt anyhow? I know he started the campaign for 1068 and 1149, but what did he do other than that? Does anyone know that all Sensible Washington needed was 20 thousand dollars to buy the needed signatures from the paid gatherers who were here after gathering enough for the liquor initiative in a matter of days.. 20 thousand dollars and this lawyer that says he is so for cannabis law reform could not pull out 20 grand, nor could any of his clients, 20K and his intiiative would have been on the ballot..? Seems to me that someone is only in this for the notariety. To dismiss a law that has the backing of people who have actually done something in their lives is ludicrous. The law currenlty states that you can be forced in for a blood draw if an officer thinks you are driving high. The current limit is 0ng in your blood, an increase to 5 ng is a step n the right direction. Most people don't want plants in every yard and stoned drivers weaving here and there. I smoke constantly and I don't want this.. think for yourself, after all, he is a lawyer, come on, when have we ever liked a lawyer?
Solomon, Alison Holcomb is also a lawyer, or are you just thinking with your other brain, as usual?
We have boo-coo lawyers in Congress and need I remind anyone that lawyers got us into this mess to begin with, in point of fact, we have lawyers up the ying-yang. Think about this, would you take a complaint about the harsh treatment of chickens to the Kentucky Colonel? Well, would you? Don't expect any help from the legal community friends, the "I'm gonna get mine" crowd doesn't care about you or me! How do I know? Because I've been a federal prisoner for 22 years with 5 years to go for a cocaine transaction with a paid government informant from BONN GERMANY, that's how I know! Besides, why would anybody surrender their life, liberty and property for a violation of a federal statute that in and of itself, STATUTORILY EXEMPTS any person at random and not registered with the attorney general from the ambit of federal jurisdiction anyway! Wanna bet?
Nice of you to call me out by name, asshole.... Is that all you have as a rebuttal is htat Allison is a lawyer also? What a shame. I figured you would call me abunch of names and accuse me of being a fed like you do to nayone else that does not agree with SW's extremist vies on marijuana. 75 percent of the voters are not extremists and want some sort of control. Get over your extremist ways..
I am not a grower nor greedy. I am a patient, and I am dying. I just want to be able to live what life I have left in some comfort, without being a zombie. I'd like to function as best as I can. You can give all the arguments you want, but it comes down to one thing:I-502 would criminalize patients or removed their driving privileges so the recreational user won't be criminalized anymore. You are justifying it by calling patients "extremist" and referring to our "shrill cry". What lack of compassion you appear to have. You say we are already criminal so why not just add more fuel to the fire right?
I really don't think anyone really wants to decriminalize on the backs of patients. I would bet jontomas is another made up person from NAW.
If you are for I-502, you are against patients.If you support NAW, you support discrimination of the sick, dying and disabled.It's time to use real science and be responsible.
To a patient below:
That's simply tunnel vision. As various leaders of marijuana reform have pointed out, medical marijuana patients will NEVER be free as long as the Inqusititorial war on marijuana consumers is raging. We see this repeatedly, as the feds take pains to demonstrate they will take down growers and dispensaries wherever and whenever they like.
Patients with a modicum of reason and vision are fighting just as hard along side their brothers/sisters with which they have so much in common, to end the whole corrupt persecution.
We WILL arrive at the end of marijuana prohibition. But it is a process, not a grand leap to the tin cup in one idealized initiative. This initiative will move us 90 percent of the way to our goal. That's hugely beneficial to recreational AND medical marijuana consumers.
One of our challenges in the reform struggle is dealing with some greedy growers and vendors who want things to stay just as they are. Some have even campaigned against legalization initiatives - preaching to their customers the "horrible defects" they contain.
As reform matures, these shrill voices will be increasingly ignored.
Typical high school behavior with name calling and making false accusations.
The facts are all right there above. NAW's initiative would cause hardship to patients and make it criminal for them to drive, even though there is no scientific proof that the numbers NAW proposes show impairment. I have written about titration and toleration, I have read the studies. NAW has been informed of the inconsistencies with their logic and continues with this initiative with full knowledge of the harm it could cause to patients.
It's quite plain and simple: It's NOT okay to decrim for rec users on the backs of the sick, disabled and dying. If you are for the initiative, you are against the patient.
sorry, A patient, AKA Mimi Spews, your logic is sick and I still question your motives..
all the groups in Wa. can't seem to get it right. Sick and Dying patients to be made to be on a list or be rounded up later ,growing in your own home will be illegal .You will still have no rights. they will call it( homeland terrorism) and we will all be carted away on FED charges .All so the state has a new income ran by the state, not patients to run such a operation plus the fact this state can't even balance a checkbook Why would we trust anything that come's from these groups it's not there live's or healthpatients against legalization staying alive without discrimination from our state, city and county leaders
You think they aren't on a list already? You underestimate the goons of the American Inquisition. Our only hope to is end the persecution with ballot initiatives designed to gain as much progress as possible at this time. This initiative moves us 90 percent toward our goal. To reject this progress is short-sighted, or worse.
To make any law in regards to Marijuana is not much different than making a law about the grass growing in your yard. It's wholly ignorant and stupid.
p. 16 of Grotenherman study - found in a link posted by Alison Holcomb herself - says "Unfortunately, the evidence from epidemiological studies on cannabis and accident risk is still much less conclusive than for alcohol and alone is insufficient for adopting a science-based legal limit for THC in blood." This is the best research NAW has? It CLEARLY says the evidence is insufficient for establishing a scientifically-proven legal limit for THC.
just to be clear, you can currently be charged and convicted for driving with ANY amount of THC in your blood under current WA law, and patients are CURRENTLY being charged and convicted. so the argument that somehow NAW would suddenly make patients criminals ignores the facts that patients are already treated as criminals.
So, why do we need a new DUI law then? It seems we already have a law on the books that's working just fine and police don't need another one to protect the public from harm. No?
The DUI provisions are peripheral. This is legislation to end marijuana prohibition. Any such legislation needs to have driving restrictions in it now, due to the public's residual propaganda-induced fears.
Sorry. I couldn't reply to you below. - I agree, there are different, and better ways to do it. But this is the vehicle we have, and it will end marijuana prohibition.
It does not cast anything in stone. Of course, marijuana policy will continue to be refined until it reaches its optimum form, just as we did with alcohol after ending its prohibition. We will never have the perfect bill from the get-go.
We just have to keep headed toward our goal. This initiative takes us most of the way there. It's pointless to make millions of good Americans suffer two more years of the monstrous persecution.
Actually, it doesn't need restrictions. I can buy the argument that the DUI issue needs to be addressed, but there are a lot of ways to do so without going to this extreme. (i.e. pointing the uneducated public to the DUI law that ALREADY EXISTS or dedicating funding for further research to help determine a legitimate level, without implementing a law that's not yet scientifically proven.)
Allison, in closed circuit testing sponsored by the USDOT in Maastricht NL, some drivers actually scored better when consuming cannabis. Doesn't this science (which has been replicated) mean that some of us should get special driving privileges, or better yet, insurance discounts 'cause we actually drive BETTER when we are "above the influence" This same study , paid for buy US tax payers, said it was not possible to connect blood levels with impairment. Causality or determination of impairment was the hypothesis of the research, it was not proven, much to the chagrin of the USDOT.This was not a co-relational study, but causal research. There is no real evidence I see you citing. A panel of activists giving a subjective opinion and agreeing on some arbitrary limit is not science, sorry!. Sorry again, NAW fails my test of credibility on this issue alone to say nothing of not allowing home growing and exorbitant taxation. Your proposal guts my values as a cannabis activist and those same values of the whole movement with a chain saw... We should ask ACLU should sue YOU for discrimination and abuse of power......;-D
╭⌒╮WELCOME TO===== http://www.goodoye.com ====It is the best online website!1!
Shop to provide quality professional value of the trust-level goods .Online sales cheap shoes and clothes. our company's global delivery of quality value of the letter lazy ~!
Please input this URL:===== http://www.goodoye.com ====you can find many cheap and fashion stuff!!!thank you!!!
If you need to sign I-502 please email me and I'll meet you. Or you could just wait for hempfest..
@5531419a009e2aad9df8091a3bf24fe9:disqus :
I can't reply to your reply, so I have to post anew.
The study you cite (Sewell, et al.) also says:
"Case-control studies are inconsistent, but suggest that while low concentrations of THC do not increase the rate of accidents, and may even decrease them, serum concentrations of THC higher than 5 ng/mL are associated with an increased risk of accidents."
"Future research should concentrate on resolving contradictions posed by previous studies by more tightly controlling for methodological problems."
"In the meantime, patients who smoke marijuana should be counseled to have a designated driver if possible, to wait at least three hours after smoking before driving if not, that marijuana is particularly likely to impair monotonous or prolomged driving, and that mixing marijuana with alcohol will produce much more impairment than either drug used alone."
Alison
Large doses of THC may, indeed, cause significant impairment, BUT, the preponderance of the research shows marijuana is NOT a significant cause of auto accidents. See:
http://norml.org/index.cfm?Gro...
Marijuana is NOT alcohol. While alcohol drinkers think they are better drivers and so drive faster and more aggressively, marijuana consumers are very aware of their altered consciousness and correctly judge when they are too impaired to drive - refraining from doing so. If they must, they correctly compensate for their altered state by driving slower and more cautiously.
Playing the piano while driving would create tremendous impairment also. But, since we do not have a significant problem with people playing the piano and driving, we don't need to pass laws against it. The same is true with marijuana. If it's not broke - don't fix it!
Again, I understand we will have to concede some driving restrictions initially to ease public fears. But we should not buy into the propaganda ourselves. With time, the public will realize marijuana consumption does not create signficant danger on the roads, and that regulatory systems to prevent it are a waste of time and money.
The MPP-sponsored initiative in Colorado contains this phrase, "Driving under the influence of marijuana shall remain illegal." They want to amend that into our constitution, ensuring harassment of patients and non-patients alike for the rest of history. MPP admits that their initiative is "not legalization" in Colorado, yet continues to market it to the unsuspecting public as "legalization". Their deception is amazing and harmful to the movement to bring true legalization to Colorado. http://www.legalize2012.com/mp...
We already have a new branch of law enforcement dedicated solely to policing cannabis patients, thanks to the MPP-written mmj initiative that passed in Colorado in 2000. Another poorly-written law. Colorado's mj community has been facing unprecedented levels of harassment, "knock and talks", and illegal searches. MPP's new initiative would hand the entire program over to this law enforcement cadre to police pot smokers all over the state. Their initiative means more laws, more penalties, more cops, and more ways to go to jail, not fewer.
The devil is in the details -- no more bad mj laws. If a good law won't pass, maybe you should put some money into education and grassroots organizing until the good law will pass. No point in passing a law if you are going to have to spend the next 20 years trying to overturn it.
And never mind that millions of innocent Americans could be removed from the battlefield and finally cease to be treated as "criminals," right?
So what you are saying is that it's okay to treat another population (patients) like criminals so recreational users don't have to be criminal anymore? Because that is exactly what I read. I am a patient. Why do you want to treat me like a criminal because I am sick? Why is it okay if patients suffer so you can get high?
Leaders of marijuana reform point out medical marijuana patients will NEVER be free as long as the Inqusititorial war on marijuana consumers is raging. We see this repeatedly, as the feds take pains to demonstrate they will take down growers and dispensaries wherever and whenever they like.
Patients with a modicum of reason and vision are fighting just as hard along side their brothers/sisters with which they have so much in common, to end the whole corrupt persecution.
Alison,
My post wasn't ever meant as a scientific experiment. It was always purely anecdotal, however the fact that I was examined by a doctor prior to my blood being drawn and determined to have been sober should not be ignored or treated lightly -- regardless of whether or not the doctor is one who supports patients using natural medicine, including cannabis.
I'll overlook your calling into question my integrity as a journalist and the implications that I was somehow not being truthful about when I had last smoked, but ask you to listen to yourself and not "resort to personal attacks" in the future.
William,
My statement that you weren't monitored to confirm when you last toked wasn't intended to imply you weren't being truthful or to call into question your integrity as a journalist. However, I can see how you could have read it that way. I sincerely apologize for not being clearer.
My point was that your story should not be held up as science, which is what Steve does in his story when he juxtaposes your blog post against the studies New Approach references in its factsheets: http://www.newapproachwa.org/c.... Whether we are jounalists, marijuana law reform advcoates, or both, we undermine our credibility by ignoring the distinction between anecdote and science and publicly claiming one is equal to the other.
Best regards,Alison
The fact is that the study you use to base your numbers does not use patients who ingest large amounts orally. This is known in science as a lack of adequate control groups and makes the study irrelevant for the application for which you so strongly hold onto.
Your numbers are based on flawed interpretations of a study, which completely confounds the results and renders your numbers baseless.
Why do you want to take away the driving privileges of the sick, disabled and dying based on flawed science? Why would you try and criminalize driving for ALL medical marijuana patients when you personally know that the levels you propose DO NOT necessarily mean someone is impaired?
How can people in your organization say that it is perfectly fine to exclude an entire population from driving legally based on incorrect numbers from improperly applied science? And don't try and discount it, this is basic high school chemistry. The confounding factor is not insignificant here.
All those in marijuana reform know marijuana is not a signficant cause of auto accidents. The preponderance of the research demonstrates it.
The need for driving restrictions in the iniative is, unfortunately, a political one. The public is still operating under some propaganda-induced beliefs. No iniative will cast marijuana policy in stone. We will continue to refine it until we reach the optimum form, just as we did with alcohol after repealing its prohibition. The important thing is to make progress while we can. This iniative moves us 90 percent toward the goal that benefits everyone - recreators, patients, and the general public.
Allison Holcomb: Please leave the state. Not impressed with your ways and means, girlie.
By the way, I just paîd $21.87 for an îPad 2-64GB and my boyfriend loves his Panasonîc Lumîx GF 1 Camera that we got for $38.76 there arriving tomorrow by UPS.I will never pay such expensive retail prices in stores again. Especially when I also sold a 40 inch LED TV to my boss for $657 which only cost me $62.81 to buy.Here is the website we use to get it all from, http://BidsFirst.com
DAY 34 http://www.change.org/petition... petition for the RON PAUL HR 2306 billNORML petition for the RON PAUL HR 2306 bill
carboxy delta 11 which is what they test for at the 5 ng/ml is a benign substance and is not part of the CSA.
I did the research on this steve.. http://scholar.google.com/scho...
II. Nature of Carboxy THCThese cases present an issue of first impression — whether carboxy THC, a metabolite of a schedule 1 controlled substance, can be considered a schedule 1 controlled substance itself for purposes of proceeding against a defendant under M.C.L. § 257.625(8). Issues of statutory interpretation are questions of law subject to review de novo on appeal.[9] The primary goal in statutory construction is to ascertain and give effect to the intent of the Legislature.[10] It is only when statutory language is ambiguous that we are permitted to look beyond the statute to determine the Legislature's intent.[11] When construing an ambiguous statute, "[t]he court must consider the object of the statute, the harm it is designed to remedy, and apply a reasonable construction that best accomplishes the statute's purpose, but should also always use common sense."[12] In this regard, courts should seek to avoid a construction that would produce absurd results, injustice, or prejudice to the public interest.[13]Defendants were charged with violating M.C.L. § 257.625(8), which provides:456*456 A person, whether licensed or not, shall not operate a vehicle upon a highway... within this state if the person has in his or her body any amount of a controlled substance listed in schedule 1 under section 7212 of the public health code, 1978 P.A. 368, M.C.L. § 333.7212, or a rule promulgated under that section....[[14]]Marijuana, spelled "marihuana" in the statute, is expressly included as a schedule 1 controlled substance in M.C.L. § 333.7212(1)©. This statute does not expressly include carboxy THC, by any name, as a schedule 1 controlled substance. M.C.L. § 333.7212(1)(d) further provides:Except as provided in subsection (2), synthetic equivalents of the substances contained in the plant, or in the resinous extractives of cannabis and synthetic substances, derivatives, and their isomers with similar chemical structure or pharmacological activity, or both, such as the following, are included in schedule 1:(i) ?1 cis or trans tetrahydrocannabinol, and their optical isomers.(ii) ?6 cis or trans tetrahydrocannabinol, and their optical isomers.(iii) ?3,4 cis or trans tetrahydrocannabinol, and their optical isomers.[[15]]Carboxy THC does have a similar chemical structure to THC.[16] However, as carboxy THC is created during the body's metabolism of that substance, it clearly is a natural, rather than synthetic, byproduct of THC.[17] Accordingly, we find M.C.L. § 333.7212(1)(d) inapplicable and must determine if carboxy THC is included in the definition of marijuana as a classified schedule 1 controlled substance."Marijuana" is defined as "all parts of the plant Canabis sativa L., growing or not; the seeds thereof; the resin extracted from any part of the plant; and every compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of the plant or its seeds or resin...."[18] As a byproduct of the body's metabolism of marijuana, carboxy THC is clearly not a part of the actual plant nor does it fit within the common definitions of a compound, manufacture, salt, mixture, or preparation.[19] The Legislature did not define "derivative" in the Public Health Code. The Michigan Supreme Court has given us permission to use the common dictionary to define terms. However, it is unnecessary to do so in this case as we can determine the Legislature's intent by other means.We note that the Legislature could have included metabolites in the definition of marijuana or schedule 1 controlled substances if it so intended. Under the Probate 457*457 Code, for example, certain parties are required to report if "a newborn infant has any amount of alcohol, a controlled substance, or a metabolite of a controlled substance in his or her body...."[20] "[T]he Legislature is presumed to be aware of all existing statutes when enacting new laws."[21] As the Legislature expressly included metabolites in another statute, we must assume that it intended to expressly exclude the regulation of these substances in the Public Health Code.[22] We also note that those Arizona and Indiana statutes cited by the prosecution that prohibit the operation of a motor vehicle under the influence of a controlled substance expressly include metabolites and, therefore, have no persuasive effect on our interpretation of the relevant statutes in this case.[23]We also find that controlling the presence of carboxy THC in a defendant's body does not comport with the purpose of the Public Health Code.The general purpose of the code is to protect "the health, safety, and welfare of the people of this state."[24] To meet that goal, the Legislature provided the administrator with the following guidance in determining how to classify a substance:In making a determination regarding a substance, the administrator shall consider all of the following:(a) The actual or relative potential for abuse.(b) The scientific evidence of its pharmacological effect, if known.© The state of current scientific knowledge regarding the substance.(d) The history and current pattern of abuse.(e) The scope, duration, and significance of abuse.(f) The risk to the public health.(g) The potential of the substance to produce psychic or physiological dependence liability.(h) Whether the substance is an immediate precursor of a substance already controlled under this article.[[25]]The Legislature further provided that "After considering the factors enumerated in section 7202, the administrator shall make findings with respect thereto and promulgate a rule controlling the substance if the administrator finds the substance has a potential for abuse."[26] Furthermore, "The administrator shall place a substance in schedule 1 if it [sic] finds that the substance has high potential for abuse and has no accepted medical use in treatment in the United States or lacks accepted safety for use in treatment under medical supervision."[27]It is undisputed that carboxy THC has no pharmacological effect on the human body and, therefore, it can have no potential for abuse, history of abuse by members of the public, or produce chemical dependence. It is also undisputed that THC is the precursor of carboxy THC, and that carboxy THC is not the immediate precursor of any controlled substance. As carboxy THC itself is a benign substance, it does not meet the criteria for classification as a schedule 1 controlled substance, or for any classification of controlled substance. Accordingly, its control could not be the object of the Public Health Code.Both trial courts, therefore, properly determined that carboxy THC is not a schedule 1 controlled substance.
Allison use a PA case in her dui theory, this case bebunks her claims. !!
so what dose a patience look like any way , what reason would a police officer feel the need to draw blood , so if some one is a patient then they are auto maticaly going to be profiled and discriminated against , are you telling us this , what is the determination the they are driving under the influence, lets do a king 5 investigation , lets see just how many people the law can identify are pot smokers over the coarse of a week based on driving , i have many friends that get high and drive every day , often in the mix of many of our citys finest and not once ever has one of them ever been pulled over or caused an accident , and in the rare occasion one should get pulled over the cop didn't know the difference so how would they Know to draw blood but to profile patients .
James Sr,
I-502 explicitly excludes carboxy-THC from the DUI provision. Please see Sec. 3.
Best,Alison
I am tired of "reformers" who hold millions of marjiuana consumers hostage - waiting for the "perfect" legislation that will likely never happen. If you folks had your way, the Dutch would have never instituted their system of "coffee shops" where possession and sale of small amounts of marijuana are allowed. Think what incredible inspiration that has been to the world, and what freedom it has given to the Dutch marijuana consumers.
Moving toward the light by steps, is better than holding out for paradise all at once.
Jon, this is one specific provision that I cannot support because it will outlaw my ability to drive a car legally. I campaigned for prop.19 even when the law wasn't perfect because it did not change existing laws regarding medical marijuana and did not create any new penalties. I know this provision might not sound like a big deal to you because you probably don't smoke very often, but for the people who depend on Marijuana as their daily medicine it is a scary scenario.
I understand the objection. I just believe it's overblown. These driving restrictions, while necessary to assuage voter's fears, will soon be tossed. The preponderance of the research shows marjiuana is NOT a signficant cause of auto accidents - whether smoked by patients or recreational consumers.
The short-term inconvenience of these restrictions is FAR overshadowed by what will be achieved by ending marijuana prohibition for ALL adults. Doing this is like taking a vaccuum cleaner to the dirt of prohibition, instead of dabbing at stains. It will inspire the rest of the country to do the same, and will spell the quick end of ALL the nonsensical regulations surrounding marijuana - including misguided driving restrictions.
With marijuana re-legalized, prohibitionists will no longer have a platform to stand on, and all their silly, bogus objections will disintegrate.
I understand that. I also understand that 5ng/dl is NOT an acceptable number! Give us something valid that works and I am fine with it, but I cannot sit by and see science manipulated falsely for political gains. That is all NAW's initiative is, a cheap ploy for political gain. If any of those people truly cared about others, this initiative would be written much differently. Their only motive is politics.
As others have noted, You are ALREADY being treated like a criminal. The law against driving while/after consuming marijuana already exists. Again, focusing on the perfect, ideal legislation is not productive. We need to focus on where we are now - and how much we can realisticly improve it, moving forward toward total relegalization. No initiative that fails to include driving restrictions will pass at this time.
So you are saying it's okay to temporarily treat me like a criminal, when in fact I am not, and that, just like marijuana prohibition, these restrictions won't last?
To: A patient
Sorry, but I was unable to respond below your post, so must do it this way.
You did not read my post well. I DON"T want to criminalize you, or anyone, for driving that is not really impaired. Again, the preponderance of the research shows marijuana is NOT a signficant cause of auto accidents. HOWEVER, the political realities are the public believes it IS a problem. Therefore, we will have to concede driving restrictions initially. They will be removed once experience shows the country there is no need for them.
You should not blame initiatives that include driving restrictions. These restrictions are COMING ANYWAY - one way or the other. The only question we have before us is, are we going to delay ending marijuana prohibition while we bicker over this, or are we going to go forward?
There is NO reason to slow down reform initiatives - period. Driving restrictions will, unfortunately, be part of the equation. But, the sooner we end marijuana prohibtion, the sooner the public's hysteria will vanish, and the country will be able to look rationally at the issue.
Many reform leaders note medical marijuana patients will NEVER be free until we end the fraudulent prohibition for everyone. Just looking at the news and how medical marijuana is always under attack - even in states that have had it a long time - should convince anyone of the fact.
Try to step back and get the bigger picture. Whether you believe it or not, The counter-productive prohibition is the base of all the problems now swirling around marijuana - including this issue of driving restrictions.
I am a patient. I do not drive impaired, but I do take very high doses of cannabis orally. Why do you want to treat me like a criminal because I am sick and dying?
That is exactly what the 5ng limit would do. It would make it illegal for me to drive under the incorrect assumption that I am impaired. And it would not just affect me, it would affect a large number of people who are disabled, people who are the poorest of the poor, whose daily lives are a constant struggle already.
And you want to take away their right to drive because some recreational users might drive impaired? How is that right or fair? Why am I and others being punished like this when we are innocent? Why would the ACLU and others stand behind something that specifically singles out a population for criminalization or hardship?
I have a degree in nursing and have worked in home health for many years. I have seen many patients who are able to function quite well while medicated with cannabis, including learning some pretty complicated medical techniques. I have seen first-hand people who are better able to function after dosing themselves with cannabis, and now I am a patient too.
I would say that those who support this limit have not looked and actually seen how difficult it is to survive under the poverty level. I would say they don't know how difficult it is to ride the bus (if one is actually available, which is often not the case for rural Washingtonians) for someone who is disabled. I would say they have never truly looked and seen the struggles the disabled go through every day to survive.
They just want to make sure we aren't allowed to drive anymore. They don't care that we are not impaired. We, cannabis patients, are unimportant and do not deserve to have the same rights as everyone else. So what if we can't get to the grocery store or the doctor anymore, most of us are dying anyway, right?
Who the hell do the people at NAW really support? Certainly not the sick, disabled and dying! In fact, they kick sand in the faces of those patients while they are down.


