tvashtarkatena

NPR's Steve Scher has some guests discussing 502 (and other initiatives). Apparently, the pot legalization initiatives in OR and CO, unlike WA, aren't as well according to polls precisely because they lack a DUI provision. They also discussed discussed the fact that only real opposition to 502 is dispensary owners who want to maintain the current Wild West situation - and that their vocal opposition has actually pushed WA voters towards, not away, from I 502. Stoned hippies who want the right to drive high don't make the best spokespeople for a soccer mom audience. It was a good thing the 502 drafters consulted extensively with John McKay, former US attorney and endorser of 502. He has been instrumental in creating an initiative that voters will actually support.

Hmmm. I don't think of you much at all.

I already head my ministry, for which Ivan is Arch Deacon, so separation of church and state precludes me from running for office.

I could. WA still sends my brother Matt's ballot to me after not having lived here for 10 years. I tear and toss, of course. The Heart of Democracy must remain Pure, lest it be Broken.

As of Oct 31, 56 for, 37 against, error +/- 4, 7 undecided. Never assume, though. This thing is still controversial. Mail that ballot in. BTW - you can still vote at one of WA polling places (yes, there are a few provided for this purpose) on election day if you lost, destroyed, or didn't receive your ballot.

Regarding Kids and the zero tolerance thing: Gross misdemeanor: In the case of an incident where a person under age twenty-one has submitted to or been administered a test or tests indicating that the alcohol concentration of the person's breath or blood was 0.02 or more, or that the THC concentration of the person's blood was above 0.00: (a) For a first incident within seven years, suspension or denial for ninety days; (b) For a second or subsequent incident within seven years, revocation or denial for one year or until the person reaches age twenty-one, whichever is longer. (5) Except as provided in subsection (6) of this section, a violation of this section is a gross misdemeanor. (6) It is a class C felony punishable under chapter 9.94A RCW, or chapter 13.40 RCW if the person is a juvenile, if: (a) The person has four or more prior offenses within ten years as defined in RCW 46.61.5055; or (b) The person has ever previously been convicted of: (i) Vehicular homicide while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or any drug, RCW 46.61.520(1)(a); (ii) Vehicular assault while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or any drug, RCW 46.61.522(1)(b); (iii) An out-of-state offense comparable to the offense specified in (b)(i) or (ii) of this subsection; or (iv) A violation of this subsection (6) or RCW 46.61.504(6). (6) It is a class C felony punishable under chapter 9.94A RCW, or chapter 13.40 RCW if the person is a juvenile, if: (a) The person has four or more prior offenses within ten years as defined in RCW 46.61.5055; or (b) The person has ever previously been convicted of: (i) Vehicular homicide while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or any drug, RCW 46.61.520(1)(a); (ii) Vehicular assault while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or any drug, RCW 46.61.522(1)(b); (iii) An out-of-state offense comparable to the offense specified in (b)(i) or (ii) of this subsection; or (iv) A violation of this subsection (6) or RCW 46.61.504(6). Seems reasonable to me. SW and Sarich have done a lot of screaming about kid felonies. Seems like only the dirtbags would be convicted of them, no? For this, people want to vote NO?

BTW, I do not agree with the zero tolerance provision for minors. I'm not sure the drafters do, either, but it was a deal breaker criminal justice professionals, mainly law enforcement, and without their support, I 502 is DOA. Even so, the net effect of I 502 will be a reduction in arrests due to a reduction in the black market and therefore availability - like alcohol and tobacco today. The 'more kids will be arrested' argument is a misinformation talking point. It makes zero sense under analysis - and we did the experiment with Prohibition. Anyway, reform of certain provisions can and will happen. Nothing will happen, however, if I 502 doesn't pass. Getting anything done in politics requires compromise. Success takes years and years of trying, failing, and revising, and waiting. Its long, hard, and frustrating work. Welcome to the real world. Carping from the sidelines about a Utopia that satisfies one's personal interests, and ignoring of the opinions of a large percentage of a voting public wary from 41 years of Drug War propaganda, and having no plan or funding for an actual win, requires no compromise, of course.

newapproachwa.org has a whole section on the science behind the DUI limit. You might have taken the time to actually visit the website - it would have addressed most, if not all, of your concerns here. In addition, there's no way law enforcement and criminal justice professionals would have gotten behind this measure as they have without a DUI provision. Finally, a DUI provision makes the measure that much more defensible against federal interference. There is nothing in I 502 about regulating the strength of marijuana. You're an attorney - I provided the link to I 502. Presumably you can use your 'find' feature to verify the accuracy of claims like this before parroting them, no? If, at some point in the future, the state require labeling of THC content, as it does alcohol content for booze, is this not information a consumer should be armed with before ingesting? Why would this be a bad thing? There would be nothing simple about simple repeal of existing laws. First, the public in WA will not vote to legalize weed without regulation. NWA studied the defeat in California extensively - and that was the number one reason voters cited as to why they voted against. Polling in WA indicates the same sentiment here, so the assumption above is incorrect. In order to legalize, we must regulate. Secondly, I 502 wasn't 'cobbled together'. It was carefully considered and drafted by two of the most talented public policy attorneys in WA, employing the experience from over a decade of drug policy reform efforts both here and in other states. It was drafted with political considerations in mind - a necessity for actually passing the initiative that seems to be lost on some critics. To pass a controversial, landmark change in policy like this, one needs to 'cobble together' many pieces - credible endorsements (criminal justice, education, and health professionals particularly), legislative support (many years of lobbying), funding (over $7 M worth), voter support (polls indicate a narrow lead, even with all these efforts in place), public education and high profile spokespeople, and messaging. The campaign isn't targeted at potheads - its targeted at swing voters like soccer moms and the elderly who are neither familiar nor comfortable with the issue, but who can be persuaded by civil liberties, waste of law enforcement, and fiscal considerations. This is also lost on our critics - without those non-pothead voters, any legalization effort will fail in WA, period. Far from being 'just what we could come up with for now' - if I 502 passes, it will serve as a model for other states. It IS the 'better proposal' - its passing, particularly after the dismal failures of previous proposals, which have closely resembled the ideas you've put for here (yup, they've been tried already), will prove that. Who, exactly, would come up with this 'better proposal'? Anyone can write up an initiative. Raising a million bucks to get 300K signatures - not so easy. Constructing and executing a 7 million dollar campaign to victory, with all the considerations I've listed above, and timing it during a presidential election to raise its visibility and voter turn out? Not easy. Populating your campaign with the most experienced drug policy experts in the country? Even harder. This is as good as it gets, and failure means you don't get another opportunity - from cashed out donors, from weary voters, from legislators concerned with being lampooned from across the aisle, for years to come. Finally, we arrest nearly 10,000 people a year in WA for weed. Wait for a better proposal? How many tens of thousands of people are we going to 'wait' for? (40,000? 100,000?), just so a few irresponsible potheads can drive around stoned?

While Romney's rhetoric on the issue may seem extreme, he appears to be largely in step with President Barack Obama when it comes to marijuana enforcement. The tone from candidate Obama gave hope to marijuana reformers, but according to all measurable figures, the administration has increased crackdowns on medical marijuana facilities in states that have legalized the substance Cuts both ways apparently. Or not: The DOJ has stated they are only busting dispensaries and grow ops in violation of state law (the busts are carried out by multi agency task forces that include state and local cops, actually). Alison Holcomb, Director of New Approach WA, told me that she has not received any information to the contrary. What we've been seeing is a clean up of dirty operations - and that's a good thing for bolstering public confidence. The DOJ's currently policy is not to preempt state MJ laws. So far, we've seen no evidence to the contrary.

God a hate that movie! you got...a...dog? NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! Step one: seal all of your climbing gear in a hardened bunker. Trust me on that.

Attitude varies by situation and mood and doesn't indicate much of anything really, particularly through the narrow lens of the web. Hoomanz have a tendency to take a data point and construct a hypothetical planet out of it, but that's not a very data driven approach, which leads me to politics. I work with a lot of activists and they come in all shapes, sizes, and attitudes - but unite for a common goal no problem. People vary. It's good to be flexible and not assume too much about em too fast. Honey attracts more bees than vinegar for sure - I'm sweet as pie most of the time, particularly when dealing with the John Q, but you might not know it on certain days, no? The centrist dems are data driven, the GOP (which doesn't seem to have much of center anymore) is ideologically driven. Look at Mitt's 'policies' - none of which survive the light of analysis or history, and you see what I mean.

Do I hear a Big Man selling himself Short?

I never dreamed I'd actually like Christie, however briefly it may last. Perhaps a tiny heart beats within this stone cold breast after all.

Always look at the endorsement list.

Stoners rank too low on the Americaness scale to deserve representation.

There can only be one Bloomberg ego per known universe. Two would rend the very fabric of spacetime like an elephant farting into a condom.

The Times is on FIRE this week. I actually feel a little sorry for the Fox unpaid interns. They're probably mainlining EPO n meth to keep up.

Shopped. There's no way his arms could be that huge.

Christie was bigger news.

Not really. I'm actually your father.

You'd think hurricanes interested in the survival of their own kind would lean GOP? Apparently not.

From: Taxes and the Economy: An Economic Analysis of the Top Tax Rates Since 1945 by the Congressional Research Service, an non-partisan arm of the Library of Congress, Sept 12, 2012 "Analysis of such data suggests the reduction in the top tax rates have had little association with saving, investment, or productivity growth. However, the top tax rate reductions appear to be associated with the increasing concentration of income at the top of the income distribution" GOP Congressmen protested the report and had it taken down from the Government's website: Article

Bottom line is neither I nor my ego chair can predict where this will go politically. We just have to start by starting and figure it out, cuz what we've been doing fucking sucks from a criminal justice, civil rights, personal liberty, public health, and fiscal standpoint. Being a sociopath, of course, I enjoy the luxury of not giving a fuck.

Gregoire has approached the feds about rescheduling pot, which would get rid of any ambiguity entirely. The feds have played 'hide the money' to get states to increase drinking ages to 21 and such, but, given that 502 already has a 21 and DUI provision, their justification might not stand up in court. Gotta treat all the states the same in that regard unless they've got a compelling interest not to - Equal Protection Clause, 14th Amendment baby. Regarding drug tourism, it would be impossible to measure or monitor without controlled borders, and Kanuckistanis have little reason to head south for that purpose. Portugal decriminalized all drugs in 2001, and they did not become a drug tourist attraction. Not an apples to apples example, but its something. The red light district of Amsterdam, where pot has always been illegal but tolerated, is a drug tourism destination, but its also just a tourist destination with lots of other things to offer the repressed British football yob. Kristiania, in Copenhagen, is not a drug tourist destination, however, despite open hash markets (and plenty of bakeries) - probably because its a crime ridden shit hole inhabited by hippy squatters.

Sociopaths aren't always psychopaths but they're always irish It's cuz we love too much.