It wont matter even IF it gets on the ballot, the SCOTUS will see to it the DEA has absolute power over us all And the teabaggers are worried about FEMA - HAW!!!!...
Marijuana and Cannabis News
 |
| Photo: Courtesy Don Skakie |
| Don Skakie, Yes End Penalties WA: "Removing marijuana penalties will not conflict with federal law" |
The new kid on the block, Washington state cannabis reform group Yes End Penalties Washington (YEP WA), will announce a new marijuana legalization drive at 11 a.m. Thursday on the North Steps of the Legislative Building at the State Capitol in Olympia.
Initiative sponsor and Lacey City Councilman Ron Lawson will announce "Initiative to the Legislature 505," which would remove cannabis-related civil and criminal penalties for adults in Washington state. Supporters of I-505 will speak at the event.
Yes End Penalties WA is inviting news media and interested members of the public to attend and compare YEP to NAW.
"Removing marijuana penalties will not conflict with federal law, avoiding preemption and empowering the people of Washington state to step away from the fear of speaking for cannabis reform and directing their legislators to create fair and evenhanded regulation that benefits the public, rather than special interest groups and based on fact and science, not misinformation or 'reefer madness' propaganda," said YEP's Don Skakie.
 |
| Photo: City of Lacey |
| Lacey City Councilman Ron Lawson, sponsor of YEP's I-505 marijuana legalization initiative |
YEP's model of legalization is quite similar to the Sensible Washington initiative, which failed in 2010 and again this year to gather the necessary signatures to make the Washington ballot.
Like Sensible Washington's I-1149, the YEP proposal, I-505, would simply remove the penalties for marijuana without setting up a regulatory structure.
That makes them both very different from New Approach Washington, another current cannabis reform effort in the state.
New Approach Washington would set up a system of state-licensed stores from which adults over 21 could buy cannabis, but would not allow home cultivation.
Adults would be allowed to possess up to an ounce of marijuana under the New Approach Washington plan.
To read the official language of I-505, click here [PDF].
More links from around the web!
51 comments
It doesn't matter WHAT we do, what we vote for, Big Pharma owns gubmint and will do ANYTHING to prevent it's investors from losing a dime. Se how the teabaggers are silent on this? TP Hypocrites are shills too. It's money versus people folks, people NEVER win...
Don your argument is weak at best. First things first, decriminalizing weed/pot is a bad idea. No matter how many ounces you are going to put that number to the crime down here on the border will not stop. I know that most people who want pot to be decriminalized, don't see the violence the cartels are forcing on the US Citizens.
Most people who want it legalized are those people who just want to light it up when they want and don't think it hurts anyone. I understand, you think people are going to be responsible and if you regulate pot the young kids wont get it, you are deluded. Kids who are 11 are smoking cigs now and can gain access to beer or what ever form of liquor they wish. My guess is you say regulate more so the kids cant get it. Again you would be wrong. Kids will find a way. Even if that way is stealing it from mom and dad or the neighbor they know has weed. There is one way it will cause crime.
Next I would like to address the drug cartels. You need to brink yourself to Laredo, Texas for a month and see what kind of war is going on over all kinds of drugs. However, pot is one of the most prevalent found in vehicles and smuggled in tunnels. Perhaps you think its OK if a little weed gets through, I can understand that misinformed view. You think as long as you remain unaffected its OK. That is a selfish piece of crap view that people are actually dying over on both sides of the border. Do yourself a favor and look and see what actually happens when someone runs drugs across your property and does not give you some but instead shoots your worthless ass over the drugs.
Next thing if your still reading. You may think "We can grow our own and cut the cartels out of the equation." Once again you would be deluded to think that first you could grow your own weed and not have it either stolen or pilfered by some teens "who should be able to smoke it." Next we can look at what happens to people who compete with the Cartels. The put your worthless butt in a stack of tires and burn you with gas and generally its a kid that gets to light you on fire. You may be thinking BS but, with a little research you can find out what is going on at the front lines of a drug war. I don't think any of the things you can throw at me would even be remotely possible when give a little thought.
I know you are far removed from actual violence that is caused by Narcotics Trafficking, not that nickle and dime shit you and your buddies do. So do your homework before you post more of this drivel on the internet for your 18-25 crowd of supporters to read.
It has been proven that the legal use of Medical Marijuana in 16 states (now 17 actually) has not increased youths access or participation in smoking marijuana. In fact, education and regulation is the way. You apparently have not done your research AT ALL.
Do you realize how many Billions of dollars are wasted on the supposed Drug War? when it could have been used to educate and regulate which has been shown to be more effective where this has been tried. This is mother natures plant put here on the earth for people to use. As a Free Country we should be able to responsibly use marijuana as we do alcohol. If you drink alcohol at all you would be a hypocrite btw. If you used vicoden or any pain killer you would also be a hypocrite.
I smoke/eat marijuana/hash everyday and I have 2 daughters, both in High School, that do not use marijuana. You know why?, because they are educated and know that they should not use at such a young age. If they want to they have friends that can give them marijuana they told me which was the same thing for me in HS but I didn't accept. They also choose to say no. Marijuana laws have not decreased the use or access by young people and legalizing it won't change that as well. If kids want to do something they will.
I grow my own marijuana and nobody touches it. Wrong again. I have friends over the past 20 years that grow their own and nobody touches their stuff either. Wrong.
Having safe access to marijuana is what's needed. The drug cartels will be hit in a way they can't recover but there will still be some violence as there is anyway over everything people are greedy for.
btw: Did you know that the U.S. gov. has a patent #6,630,507 on Cannabinoids which states that it has medicinal purpose? Do you know that this conflicts with their Schedule 1 of cannabis "no medical value"? Why does your gov have a patent on something that is only derived from marijuana? Think about it. Then read the Shafer report from the Nixon era. Shafer was commissioned by Nixon to report on Marijuana. Shafer said marijuana had value and that legalization was the way to go, Nixon ignored the report and powered through the Controlled Substance Abuse Act. The Dr. who originally helped put marijuana as a Schedule 1 drug said he only did so temporarily and that the Shafer report should have taken it off Schedule 1. You probably don't know these facts but start reading, there's a lot more that the FED did to lie about cannabis and even hemp. Look up 1941 Hemp Car by Ford video. It shows a car made of hemp being hit with a sledge hammer and it didn't dent it at all. Why aren't we using it then since its 10X stronger than steal? Did you also know that Hemp converts CO2 to oxygen better than trees and does so over 14 weeks compared to a tree which takes 20 years? So here we are cutting down trees around the world when we could be using Hemp. Why doesn't the FED want to improve our air when its easy?
Last. Take a look at this video http://youtu.be/2hO7uqK1EoM . If marijuana were legal straight across the board one could help save their own child without any interference from the FED. Nobody should need a "medical card" to use marijuana.
Without cannabis my arthritis would never have been resolved and I would still not be able to walk today.
I hope you learn from this and start researching the truth. You are very wrong about all of your opinions (which have been touted for 40 years while people have died). Your drug war failed. Its time for legalized marijuana.
only reason tobacco and weed is illegal to grow at home is atf cant tax iti bet this new initiatiave that prohibits home growing will become the new state law, followed by country law.
i left wa (and USA) cuz I got caught being piss drunk on legal alcohol after taking a pen to a wall.... anywho!... they wanted 2.5 yrs of random drug tests and mandatory compliance with anti-psychotics which makes me sick.... the fucks in power lost control of their own lives and are trapped by their captors into controlling everyone elses... mind control isnt liberty.. just look at the net... not the same as in the early 90s... like tv now... a tool to brainwash... washing... TON! I suggest they change the name to WASHINGnone!... maybe the idiots might follow suit....
Skakie is such an idiot...he was the only fucking idiot atHempfest collecting signatures for 505 with a sign "Sign here tolegalize"(http://www.seattlepi.com/local...that in itself is false because 505 does not legalize pot...but 502 does...
As a matter of fact, Skakie and his band of stoners areposter children for why we shouldn't smoke pot…because they can’t get facts theirfacts straight or motivate themselves to collect signatures. Skakie has done more damage against the causethan helped it and has only made a name for himself so he can get stoned forfree…he’s a badass blowhard with a brain of mush…
Thanks Ben. But I was not alone at all. So if 502 legalizes, why won't anyone be allowed to grow their own?
My facts are straight and I was obviously motivated or the link you provide wouldn't exist. Others tell me NAW got about 5,000 signatures. YEP got 2,113 ( a real number). So I alone (or my band of stoners) got almost half of what NAW did? Thanks for the inspiration, I'll keep at it.
Please detail the damage I did by collecting more than 1% of what 1149 needed AFTER I left SW.
How am I getting "stoned for free"?
Did you even read what you wrote for all the self contradictions you included?
Yet I'm the one with brains of mush?
Thanks for your educated and enlightening comments!
As a reminder, after Prop 19's failure, NORML did a post-mortem that detailed a plan of action for getting a bill passed, 10 Lessons Learned from Marijuana Election Defeats at http://blog.norml.org/2010/11/...
Ask yourself, after reviewing the NORML analysis, which initiative movement (there are actually 3 as Sensible Washington insists on continuing) has the best chance for success.
Thanks Ray, that is my goal, but we need their support too. We have a plan that should net us 20-50K signatures at Hempfest so anyone that is willing to commit to an hour or more will be helping us get them. We will have sheets for YEP signature crews at Hempfest and will be sending out PDF's for remote printing statewide as well.
Anyone can print enough petitions for about $6.00 and then it is about a 20 hour commitment for 1000 people to get 300 signatures.
When are you coming over? YEP needs you now!-D
Please find any place in the controlled substances act which covers carboxy delta 11. The benign substance of the 5ng/ml test done for a dui-C ..
This NAW is a police unions push for extra bucks since the LEA are hurting for money to stay employed.
ACLU do not support Patients rights.
The Brief they wrote in State v. Fry proves this beyond all reasonable doubt..
The "presentment requirement" ..they argued section, when the plain language of the act is CHAPTER
The "Affirmative Defense" ..The ONLY Aff. Def. was in the 60-day supply WAC of over 15/24 presumption.
They blew chuncks.
They teamed up with K/L Gates on the Brief because K/L Gates is the police unions lawyers..
Know whom you back before backing them PHIL and other's... how revolting.
Please note that Roger Goodman, our future pro-repeal congressman to replace ex cop Reichert, was responsible for the nanogram limit.
“I’ve heard quite a number of concerns from people who’ve called me about the nanogram limit for driving…”
Goodman explains, “As for the THC-while-driving bill, it was brought to me by Seattle City Att’y Pete Holmes and endorsed by NORML and ACLU, but after a couple of meetings I realized it was misguided and not supported by science and withdrew the provision from my omnibus DUI bill.”
“I will be ready to receive it [I-502] enthusiastically in the Legislature, anticipating the ability to amend it,” Goodman said. “The problem is if the Legislature does not amend it, the way it is drafted today, it would appear on the ballot in November 2012. There are some concerns, and we need to tweak it or re-draft the language quite soon.
Even under the SW initiative, the legislature which would promulgate regulations would likely deal directly with the “impaired” driving issue as this is a major, but overblown, concern.
This initiative is about recreational marijuana and does not change medical cannabis laws. However, as prohibitionist fears drive medical cannabis public policy, the positive effects of the repeal of marijuana prohibition will be directly felt by those who grow and use cannabis medicinally.
Goodman got this right: “I have to say this is a huge step where we have a bipartisan group of prominent people putting it forward…”
Good to know Rep. Goodman has done his research. He is correct that the language is misguided and is not supported by science. With that in mind, why is Alison Holcomb presenting it as scientifically-proven fact? The truth is undeniable, as was obvious to Rep. Goodman after just a couple of meetings. Could it be that Alison is willing to win at all costs, regardless of the sad state of affairs it leaves patients with? If she had spent half the time re-writing this poor provision that she's spent defending it, we wouldn't be having this discussion. NAW might appeal to the broader public with this misguided provision, but can it win if the vast majority of patients in this state oppose it? Legalization will need every single vote to pass and the way NAW's bill is worded, they've alienated tens of thousands of voters who would have been guaranteed yeses.
Phil - Alison Holcomb is the only one with the power to change the language. If she wanted to do something about it, she would have. Of course being an attorney, she and her friends stand to make big bucks off all these future DUI-C cases. NAW might have discussed other options, but they obviously didn't give those alternatives any serious consideration. Alison would rather bend the truth and make it appear to support her arguments. A real reformer would take the time to educate the misinformed public, not add to the confusion. I'm sorry to see that you, of all people, have fallen for her sly and scandalous ways.
PANAW wrote, "why is Alison Holcomb presenting [the language of the initiative that would make driving with 5 ng of THC per ml of blood driving while intoxicated per se] as scientifically-proven fact?"
I don't believe she has done so. If you think she has, please cite your source. If I misinterpreted your statement, please correct me.
PANAW wrote, "can [I-502 get on the ballot and be enacted as law by voters] if the vast majority of patients in this state oppose it?"
Yes, I think it can. If I remember correctly, around 5% of the population qualifies for the legal medicinal use of cannabis. Only 53% of the other 95% need vote for this in order for it to pass if every single voting patient votes "no". So it only takes a bit less than 53% of the general population to pass something that every medical cannabis patient opposes.
PANAW wrote, "Alison Holcomb is the only one with the power to change the language"
Nobody can change it now that it has been submitted. If the 300,000 or so signatures are gathered, the legislature will have the opportunity to offer to voters an alternative.
PANAW wrote, "If [Alison] wanted to do something about [the poor-in-my-opinion language in what is now known as I-502], she would have."
Looking to the past, I suspect that you and she simply disagree about what the majority of Washington voters support. I am confident that if she thought this initiative would pass without the 5 ng/ml DUI limit, she would have argued hard for its removal or amendment, and that it likely would have been removed or amended.
PANAW wrote, "being an attorney, [Alison] and her friends stand to make big bucks off all these future DUI-C cases"
I'm no legal expert, but I think you're way off on this. Without the per se limit, there would continue to be plenty of opportunity for defense attorneys to get paid for trying to convince judges and juries that someone found to have N ng/ml in his blood was not unlawfully impaired. With this limit, if the test is trustworthy, there would be nothing for them to argue. One need not be dangerous or even impaired to have violated the law in that situation. One need only to have more than the legal limit for THC in his blood while driving. The per se limit will almost certainly limit the opportunity for defense attorneys. I'm not saying that's a good thing -- just that it won't benefit defense attorneys.
PANAW wrote, "NAW might have discussed other options, but they obviously didn't give those alternatives any serious consideration"
That is not obvious.
Phil: I believe New Approach Washington's own FAQ sheet - found in the link below - presents the 5 ng/ml limit as being backed up by science. For all of the reasons I've stated before, I believe science does little to prove 5 ng/ml is a legitimate intoxication level. In fact, I would argue that science actually disproves this claim. http://www.newapproachwa.org/s...
This brings me to point 2 - Can NAW pass without patients? I think it's clear that NAW needs every single vote it can get, as evidenced by its appeal to the low-hanging fruit with this DUI provision. While they 'might' get some who are on the fence by doing so, they will 'definitely' lose more than a handful of their base supporters. I also believe patients can come together to send a unified opposition message - and that could prove to be just as beneficial as the message they will send at the polls.
3. Alison Holcomb had the power to change the language many different times when there was still an opportunity to do so. She chose to bury her head in the sand and pretend the initiative had to go forward with this precise provision, despite being presented evidence to the contrary, by several different reliable and informed sources. She knew if she could just appease people until the petitions were printed, it would be too late - and she also knows that the Legislature is incredibly unlikely to offer an alternative, considering one of her sponsors is a State Representative.
4. I stand by my statement that Alison and her buddies stand to profit from DUI-C. This test is NOT trustworthy and I hope to God that this shoddy 'science' does not stand up in court. But should that worst-case scenario come to fruition - you concede that under NAW's provision, one need not be impaired to be found guilty of DUI, only to have a 5 ng/ml limit or greater in their bloodstream. This precise reality is what scares me the most about the language. The fact that patients would have NO defense, regardless of whether they were impaired behind the wheel, if their blood test shows 5 ng/ml.
5. See point number 3 for why I believe it's 'obvious' no other alternatives were given serious consideration.
Don wrote, "Of what good is the opinion of a misinformed public?"
Phil wrote,"That depends on the circumstances."
That is the way of Alison Holcomb and NAW. How about finding and standing by the truth for an honest conversation instead of twisting facts to fool and continue to misinform that very public. Sounds un-American to me.
The straight decriminalization approach had not been successful. It does not address the concerns of the the voters who, if their concerns were addressed, would support the end of marijuana prohibition. The decision to repeal prohibition rests not so much with cannabis users, but with those voters who oppose the failed, expensive, unjust policy of prohibition.
The NAW initiative was crafted to address the concerns of voters and to assure enough signatures and a bill that has a chance of passage with the voters.
The NAW inititive has the backing of the legal muscle of the ACLU and the attorney sponsors like Pete Holmes and John MacKay. They have a noted chemical dependency expert as a sponsor. They have Rick Steves. They have raised over a quarter of a million dollars. They will have paid signature gatherers. NAW has an organization to promote their goals. And they will be able to attract even more money from national sources and to dovetail with other state legalization initiatives.
What does I-505 have?
If cannabis is decriminalized do you really think the Washington legislature will not rush to implement an impaired driving law that addresses cannabis and driving? See my next post on this issue.
Let me put it bluntly: The balkanization of the reform movement in our state serves to maintain the status quo. I ask everyone to consider if we want to try that which has failed for a third time?
I suspect notSpicoli meant legalization and not decriminalization. In the context of drug policy, decriminalization typically means to change from criminal offense to civil infraction, and legalization typically means to change from unlawful to lawful.
Phil said "Don: Are you suggesting that New Approach Washington sponsors *want* a per se DUI-C limit and that they worded their polls in such a manner that they would likely show inaccurately-large concern about the potential for people to drive under the influence of cannabis should we make it legal?"I don't want to speak for Don, but I personally am suggesting exactly what you describe, Phil. It's clear NAW sponsors want a per se DUI-C limit because they were unwilling to even consider any other possible option. As I've said before, there are other ways to address people's unfounded DUI fears without going to this extreme (i.e pointing out the DUI law that already exists and works just fine.) I've also seen their polling personally and not only is the wording unfairly biased, but even then the numbers still don't support Alison's claims that the public won't support legalization without additional DUI laws.
I'm willing to hold my nose and vote for just about any legalization effort, but not if it creates a brand new law that will again be used to arrest, prosecute and incarcerate cannabis users.
PANAW wrote, "It's clear NAW sponsors want a per se DUI-C limit because they were unwilling to even consider any other possible option."
How do you know that they were unwilling to consider other options? I suspect that they did consider others. Assuming for the sake of argument that they were unwilling to do so, how does that make it clear that they want a per se DUI-C limit? I suspect it's a matter of political reality. Failing to address "stoned driving" has killed other reform efforts, most recently, I think, in Nevada.
If they had considered other options the BS 5ng limit would NAWt be in the initiative. Withdrawl of at least one sponsor was threatened to be withdrawn because of this, but some arm tristing has them staying for now.
You suspect much phil, but what about having answers of your own that you've been asked for?
.http://www.edhardy007.com try this site next time , shipping is free and it is safe , I bought from it many times , I have never worry about the shipping ,The quality is good , especially for the price , I love it
Just hold a vote that converts all non-violent offenses to minor misdemeanors with 30 days maximum imprisonment (except for sales to minors and growing where you don't have permission, those will remain felony offenses). I know it's not ideal, but it's better than failing as 48% on the next vote
Run that next year as an initiative and see how you do. What are you talking about? California? Washington state hasn't had a vote yet.
I think this is positive to have two initiatives to the legislature right now. Why not encourage signatures of both and let the House or the people decide. Good luck Don. And i'll help if I can.
Thank you! The petition will be out Friday for Hempfest (and any other place you care to gather) but be in touch if you want to help us there. We anticipate getting 20-30K signatures there. Please Like, share and invite your friends to the YEP WA Facebook page until the website is active next week.
I'm down for any positive cannabis law reform, including YEP & NAW, but my only gripe is that no marijuana user should be labeled as a criminal (as will continue to be the case with YEP). Just a reminder folks, vote yes on both for the sake of positive law reform (two is better than none, regardless if the courts are involved!)! It's a hell of a lot easier to defend our basic cannabis civil rights, that aren't afforded through either initiative, if we have *some* sort of legality to present.
I like the idea of giving the legislature the opportunity to hear us out through YEP, but I don't believe they've shown they're currently capable of dissolving 75 years of unjust prohibition. It's up to the PEOPLE, not congress or the President.
Prohibition is the bandaid on the big whiny baby (U.S. government) and we're just gonna have to rip that sucker off! They'll eventually stop crying!!
I agree they are not capable. But the people they represent are. We're sorry minors will still be subject to penalties, but the public won't go for allowing children to choose just as they don't for tobacco. Those are the people we need to educate with the truth so their opinions have validity that a misinformed public has never had for almost 80 years. With knowledge will come reasonable law.
Sign both? Sure, put them both on the ballot. But vote for the one that truly ends prohibition in WA state. With regulation will come order that a lack of regulation hasn't achieved. YEP doesn't create any conflict and will not be in court for years due to Federal preemption. NAW's 5ng DUI has no validated basis in science. Honest scientific study will follow the passage of I-505 and we will see how wrong prohibition was.
Don wrote, "the public won't go for allowing children to choose" That's very similar to the argument many people are making for the DUI provision in I-502: that the majority of voters will not support a cannabis legalization measure which fails to address cannabis DUI. I strongly suspect that New Approach Washington based their belief about public sentiment regarding DUI on extensive polling. On what do you base your belief about public sentiment regarding prosecuting children and young adults for cannabis possession?
Don wrote, "What does a DUI level that has no proven science behind it have to do with parents rights to raise (and have some means of control over the children THEY are responsible for) their kids?"
Beats me. I compared New Approach Washington sponsors' likely belief that we need to address DUI in order to gain support for an initiative to your belief that we need to leave criminal penalties for minors in place in order to gain public support for an initiative. I suspect that they don't want to fine or imprison anyone for driving with 5 ng/ml THC in his blood, and I suspect that you don't want to fine or imprison minors for cannabis. I suspect that their language is based on extensive testing of likely outcomes. I suspect that YEPWA's is not.
Don wrote, "should we keep arresting those [people who] consume [cannabis] responsibly?"
No, we should not.
Don wrote, "Was it the mention of taxes that changed their mind?
I doubt minds were changed. ACLU-WA didn't take a public position on I-1068 until Sensible Washington essentially forced them to do so.
Don wrote, "Of what good is the opinion of a misinformed public?"
That depends on the circumstances.
1) YEP, that is what I personally, speaking only for myself, believe. It's like the argument that if it's legal for adults, kids will get it more easily. It couldn't be easier for kids to get it, because there is no regulation now. Drug dealers don't ID and have no compunction about selling to minors. Regulate it in a manner like tobacco and suddenly Johnny has to go to school with less chance of getting high first.
2) No, I'm sure no parent wants their child to go to jail. I'm saying that parent's want to raise their children to make educated choices and have some measure of control while they are legally responsible for their offspring until they are old enough to do so themselves. Once they are legally adults and legally responsible for themselves they will be making decisions based on the values they were taught. Some will be rocket scientists and some will be criminal thugs. Regulation holds out a measure of control (and accountability) for them until they are old enough to decide for themselves. We don't allow children 12 years old to drive and have laws with consequences (regulation) if they do.
Phil, you asked some questions and I have responded. Then you asked two more questions and I responded. You will see that in that first reply I asked you 5 questions that you did not answer even one of before or while asking two more. I will be happy to answer all you ask, but ask you to respect the exchange of ideas here by doing so yourself as well. The public now being educated deserves it.
Don: Are you suggesting that New Approach Washington sponsors *want* a per se DUI-C limit and that they worded their polls in such a manner that they would likely show inaccurately-large concern about the potential for people to drive under the influence of cannabis should we make it legal?
Are you saying that most of the general public you spoke with over the past two years think their kids should face criminal prosecution for possession of cannabis?
What does a DUI level that has no proven science behind it have to do with parents rights to raise (and have some means of control over the children THEY are responsible for) their kids? I just don't see DUI cannabis cases in the press that don't involve other substances. Alcohol every day, cannabis alone, rarely if at all.
A similar argument is not the same argument. I strongly suspect they did too. I also strongly suspect they worded them in a way to get the results they wanted. Figures lie and liars figure. I-502 is a great jobs program for lawyers and LEO's though! Just not real legalization for adults and not something NAW should be presenting it as.
I base my belief on 2 years of talking to the general public all around the state in genuine conversation about their concerns or lack of them and having them enthusiastically signing both I-1068 and I-1149 and I will surely talk to more that will happily sign I-505. I also talked to a few that said their minor kids had serious issues with cannabis. We know about 15% of people have problems with alcohol, but 85% don't. Figures I've seen (sorry, I cannot cite the source at this time, but it was at a presentation at the Cannabis Defense Coalition, (cdc.coop)) put those having cannabis abuse issues at about 9%. There will always be some, but should we keep arresting those that consume responsibly? I think not. I assume by young adults you refer to those under 18, as those over 18 are adults that can go buy guns and bullets. Responsible/irresponsible kids? Either way I blame the parents. I wonder how many 18-21 year olds would forgo abusing alcohol if cannabis were an available alternative?
We could be well down the road on this if the ACLU hadn't come out against I-1068. They didn't come out against I-1149. Was it the mention of taxes that changed their mind? People were willing to sign, but with no big bankroll (NAW is SO shiny!) not enough volunteers got in front of enough voters that were willing to sign. Check the polling and tell me no.
The people are ready for the end of the wastefulness of prohibition. The YEP/NAW dichotomy will educate the public about the facts soon enough about what each means to Washington State. I'm for an educated populace discussing this rationally. Of what good is the opinion of a misinformed public?
NAW creates a brand new law that targets cannabis users, particularly patients - a DUI law that not even cops and prosecutors have asked for or said they need - a law that we'll once again have to spend decades fighting! We need to stop putting cannabis users in jail, not create another way for police to incarcerate them! Especially when NAW's proposed DUI standard is NOT backed up with adequate science, research or fact. Just more lies and reefer madness! Say yep to YEP and naw to NAW!
Look nobody has time to haul people down for blood tests all day long. It's not a realistic concern. If you drive high and look high, you probably deserve a DUI. If not, likely nothing will happen just like the past 100 years.
The DUI clause is a concession to the EXTREMELY influential law enforcement lobby. I'm amazed out how out of touch some people with the standard complications of marijuana law reform.
Let's get this issue clear in the minds of the misinformed public and give them an honestly educated choice. Maybe they'll want one ounce decrim and continued Cartel violence and LEO's time spent arresting otherwise law abiding citizens, or they could put an end to this foolish Prohibition and focus on serious crime.
As to activists, which of these two choices do you support? Both are less harsh than our current laws. So are you OK with decrim? Or do you want to end prohibition and free the plant?
We will be collecting signatures at Hempfest and everywhere else statewide next Friday. I hope you will be one of 1000 people to collect 300 signatures before December 30th. We can do this.
Please "Like" and share and invite those you care about to YEP WA on Facebook,https://www.facebook.com/pages... and the website (yepwa.org) to go live soon. Thank you for all you do!D
Don,It's called incremental-ism. Sensible hasn't got on the ballot because the bill is too radical to pass, specifically the portion about 18 year olds. Parents don't want seniors having legal access to pot and taking it to school. Yes, I'm aware of the fact that it's already there and I'm not a parent but while gathering signatures for the past two initiatives... I encountered this concern... OFTEN.
Don't fight NAW, PLEASE! It's embarrassing to have this fragmented movement. Support NAW because they can make ballot for sure and might just pass. Then if SW can take it a step further, great. But don't give away a chance to take a step forward just because of principle. Remember - the pursuit of perfection is the greatest hindrance to progress.
Wish I could help you guys collect sigs for the third year in a row but the radical (in my opinion, embarassing) treatment of NAW in the media means I don't even want to be associated with YEP, or SW, or Hiatt's foul mouth.
At this point decrim would be pointless. It would have to be all or bust to see any REAL change.
HOWEVER, we do need to go through the phases of medical marijuana and decriminalization in each state before we can even think about getting to the point of ending the prohibition on a federal level.
I agree, so why would decrim be a necessary step?
"we do need to go through the phases of medical marijuana and decriminalization..."
Because if we just decriminalized marijuana all the problems would still be there. The only thing that is letting up is the harshness of getting caught with it.
All the cartels will be border crossing, all the drug dealers will still be active, nothing would change if we stopped at decrim.
Going beyond that, and legalizing, leads to regulation. You can't sell to persons under 21, without a permit, and at a specific location.
Legalization allows the law enforcement to track what's going on, and if someone is robbed it allows for there to be a safer conduit of communication between (legal) growers and law enforcement.
I want to be able to trust that law enforcement is offering protection, not have to worry about getting raided AND robbed.
