No power

[rob]

Prohibition is basically a zero-tolerance policy for minors, too.

[Pete_H]

Well, apparently 502 is polling ahead something like 54% to 34%. So things are looking good.

[tvashtarkatena]

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?

 

 

Edited November 2, 2012 by tvashtarkatena

[tvashtarkatena]

Well, apparently 502 is polling ahead something like 54% to 34%. So things are looking good.

 

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.

[rob]

Can I vote twice?

[tvashtarkatena]

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.

[ivan]

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.

no doubt ye would have drank the hemlock, too, oh tvashcrates

[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.

Edited November 2, 2012 by tvashtarkatena

[glassgowkiss]

 

95% of people have stupid reasons for believing what they do and are adamant, rigid, and unable to justify those beliefs logically - that goes for left-of-center just as much as to the right. Of course there is a bias that those who disagree with you must be somehow stupid (or ill-informed as you state), but I maintain that that attitude is and of itself indicative of the very thing you are supposedly railing against. If you despise such blind adherence to political orthodoxy and bias you need to throw those shackles off yourself.

 

I am sure you pretty much described yourself, with the rest of 95% of retards. Thanks for making the job easy.

[mattp]

Thanks for your information, Tvash.

 

You have confirmed that almost everything that was posted over there at sensiblewashington.org was correct except that they mistakenly read one point to mean that the initiative has the State regulating the strength -- I looked at the language of the initiative and found it indicates (as you point out) that the reference to strength was in a provision about packaging and labeling.

 

After considering all of this I vote yes so that we can stop arresting and jailing people over simple possession even though I think this initiative has some real flaws.

 

I and nobody I know is

Carping from the sidelines about a Utopia that satisfies one's personal interests

 

I have no real personal interest in this issue other than trying to carefully consider how I vote.

[Crux]

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 [doing] as well according to polls precisely because they lack a DUI provision [that depends upon lab differentiation between serum levels of active vs inactive THC).

 

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.

TTK, the info you shared here about 502 is much appreciated. I already cast a vote in favor, but did so while in something of a fog--even though I don't smoke--in regard to the details of the measure. For me, a desire to end the meaningless incarceration and life damage caused by current law was enough to get my vote. But about problems associated with such legislation, I'm glad to learn that 502 is a very good law, all around. The part about active-THC vs inactive-THC was something I'd never heard about before. It adds a lot of clarity to an otherwise foggy situation.

 

Interesting to learn that John McKay played such a vital part in helping the draft for 502 to be such a fine law.

 

If McKay ran for office, I suppose he'd be the kind of old-school Republican I'd vote for, depending on the candidate(s) he was running against. But I've tried to figure out why McKay steadfastly continues to support the Republican ticket, wondering if in his relationship with the GOP he suffers something like battered spouse syndrome.

 

 

[glassgowkiss]

WTF is this nostalgia bullshit? Reagan was a good guy, now even Bush Junior was not so bad. I even heard some deepshit spewing, how Bush "had a plan", when he took office. An asshole is an asshole, regardless how long ago they did their deeds. Sorry, eat less butter. WTF, now everyone has a common amnesia? Even some republican puke was saying how great Bill Clinton was as a president. Bullshit I'd say, since your party tried to oust him because of a blow job?

[ivan]

 

I have no real personal interest in this issue other than trying to carefully consider how I vote.

don't know 'bout utopias, but pretty sure i'd be happy to share a desert island w/ you, boy-o

[tvashtarkatena]

thanks for your yay votes, gentlemen.

[genepires]

If costco was going to be able to sell 10 lb bags of weed, the state would not even need a public vote to make legal.

Edited November 5, 2012 by genepires

[rob]

If costco was going to be able to sell 10 bags of weed, the state would not even need a public vote to make legal.

 

A palette?

[murraysovereign]

...get the meat of the matter accepted now (pot should be legal, w/ sensible government oversight), using the power of the ballot measure which lets the politicians off the "soft-on-crime" hook, then the boys n' girls in olympia can mold it to make it more sensible.

 

As a foreigner who is ignorant in many of your ways, but who genuinely wants to understand what the heck the neighbours are up to, this raises a question for me: how binding are these initiatives, and for how long? This initiative lays out not just a concept (ie "possession of marijuana for personal use should be decriminalized") but in fact lays out a pretty detailed piece of legislation, including limitations and exemptions, and is presumably meant to be binding. So what sort of latitude do the "boys n' girls in olympia" have in molding it? Doesn't it need to be enacted pretty much as voted? And what of subsequent amendments - would they not also have to be put to a public vote, so as to ensure the public will as expressed in the original initiative is not circumvented by future legislatures, or is there a time limit after which future legislatures can pretty much do what they want?

[ivan]

an initiative/ballot measure has the same power as a congressionaly enacted law, and like those laws, can contain a sunset provision or not (usually not) - but the congress can always pass new laws to alter existing legislation, including such measures, leaving the people only the recourse to repeat the initiative - congress can also pretty effectively fail to fund a measure too, assuming it needs cash to function

 

forking checks n' balances...

[tvashtarkatena]

Initiatives such as I 502 that are passed by the voters much be implemented by the legislature as written. They become law 30 days after the passage by the voters. I 502, like most complex legislation, allows for a one year rule making period for the State to work out the details of its implementation.

 

In Washington, no initiated statute may be amended or repealed for two years without a 2/3 supermajority vote of both chambers. Any initiated law, so amended, is not subject to veto referendum. After two years, the law may be repealed or amended by a simple majority vote.

 

State laws, initiatives included, must not violate the state's constitution. Initiatives, therefore, can and have been struck down in whole or in part by the courts due to such constitutional conflicts.

 

'Defunding' initiatives, presumably using the Appropriations clause of the WA state constitution, has not yet been attempted.

Edited November 5, 2012 by tvashtarkatena

[ivan]

Initiatives such as I 502 that are passed by the voters much be implemented by the legislature as written. I 502, like most complex legislation, allows for a one year rule making period for the State to work out the details of its implementation.

so you're not advising blowing a j in front of a statie on wendsday, inshahallah?

[tvashtarkatena]

Wait at least 30 days for the law to kick in.

 

Plus, blowing weed in public will attract that same type of law enforcement attention as chugging 40s in public.