With ballots hitting the mailbox October 19, WE figured it was high time to dredge Initiative 502 (I-502) “on marijuana reform.” Liberty-minded folks committed to preserving individual rights ask, “Who owns our bodies anyway? Us, or the state?" and many wonder, "Maybe it’s time for legalization - we’re adults." But even pro pot forces have their knickers in a knot over this holdover from last year.
| |  |
Wikipedia offers a pretty solid background article, and here’s the official verbiage (tons to read). You should know what the fine print actually says before voting. Also know that there’s one heck of a dogfight inside the pro-marijuana community. According to this recent article in the Seattle P.I., the law enforcement community has been split on it.
The Wikipedia piece does such a good job of presenting a section-by-section rundown on the initiative with a good comparison of pros and cons we won’t restate them.
We'll point out a few things to consider that aren’t apparent in the ballot title:
· This would defy federal law. How that shakes out is uncertain, but it raises questions about states' snubbing Congress. People with a liking for federal laws and regulations should consider the implications of ignoring them piecemeal. Do state-versus-federal law conflicts lead to bad precedent? It’s worth pondering. States’ rights challenges don't always end well.
· It may not matter to you, but the plan places marijuana and related “controlled substances” under the management of the Liquor Control Board – bureaucrats. Most of the initiative talks about production, manufacture and sales without addressing home herb gardens (the number of plants people can have is limited). There's talk about THC concentration (how does a person determine that?), what a person can carry, etc. and parts of this could create an enforcement nightmare. There may be tension between the new liquor control board business and what's already on the books about medical marijuana.
· This would present entirely new regulatory and law enforcement challenges. Unsafe behavior "under the influence," public inebriation, and DUI won't be judged or tolerated much differently than they are now. Know that levels of THC in your system can be tested, just as for alcohol.
· WE honestly don’t know how businesses would have to adapt their drug testing and employment policies and standards if marijuana is "decriminalized" on the state level, but people working for federal agencies and maybe even those doing work funded by federal grants would probably have to abide by federal workplace laws and regs to avoid jeopardy.
The Wikipedia piece does such a good job of presenting a section-by-section rundown on the initiative with a good comparison of pros and cons we won’t restate them.
We'll point out a few things to consider that aren’t apparent in the ballot title:
· This would defy federal law. How that shakes out is uncertain, but it raises questions about states' snubbing Congress. People with a liking for federal laws and regulations should consider the implications of ignoring them piecemeal. Do state-versus-federal law conflicts lead to bad precedent? It’s worth pondering. States’ rights challenges don't always end well.
· It may not matter to you, but the plan places marijuana and related “controlled substances” under the management of the Liquor Control Board – bureaucrats. Most of the initiative talks about production, manufacture and sales without addressing home herb gardens (the number of plants people can have is limited). There's talk about THC concentration (how does a person determine that?), what a person can carry, etc. and parts of this could create an enforcement nightmare. There may be tension between the new liquor control board business and what's already on the books about medical marijuana.
· This would present entirely new regulatory and law enforcement challenges. Unsafe behavior "under the influence," public inebriation, and DUI won't be judged or tolerated much differently than they are now. Know that levels of THC in your system can be tested, just as for alcohol.
· WE honestly don’t know how businesses would have to adapt their drug testing and employment policies and standards if marijuana is "decriminalized" on the state level, but people working for federal agencies and maybe even those doing work funded by federal grants would probably have to abide by federal workplace laws and regs to avoid jeopardy.
 |  |  |
· This state has the rabid munchies for cash, and the proposed tax on grass would be huge. Did you know this would impose a 25% tax on every stage of handling: production to wholesale, wholesaling to retail, and the final retail sale? Those taxes would add up a mighty heavy hit. Once rolling, this sin-tax could get bodaciously high (pardon the endless stream of puns). If "legal" grass becomes outrageously expensive thanks to taxes on handling by middlemen plus the final sales tax, street grass could be a lot cheaper. Thus "legalization" may do little to meet the official goal to "take marijuana out of the hands of illegal drug organizations." Don’t know, can’t say – but there’s little reason to believe any part of this initiative will empty jails overnight, if at all.
· It’s always seemed hypocritical that many who vehemently oppose smoking tobacco and obsess about organic food and fitness go totally brain-dead where it comes to public health consequences and the physical effects of smoking weed. Whether or not you believe grass is harmful, the state will continue to officially categorize marijuana use as a problem. Millions will be spent on programs to discourage abuse at the same time that it's skimming taxes on sales and handling. The tax revenue (at least at this point) is mostly slated for health and drug-treatment, but WE also suspect that - like always - those funds will be raided for other things.
At a minimum, readers should take time to understand what this initiative actually says before voting. The "decriminalization" of pot has been proposed before, and not all opponents have been squares. The situation is not a dead ringer for prohibition.
Don't be fooled into thinking this is legalization in the true sense, it's not. Have ads been honest? Here in Whatcom County we haven't seen too many. However positive the spin, no one should expect this to be a joyride with Cheech & Chong. It will take few to the happy place they'd really like.
Go - Google, Wiki, and learn what you can about what may be nothing more than another 66 pages of bad regulation.
· It’s always seemed hypocritical that many who vehemently oppose smoking tobacco and obsess about organic food and fitness go totally brain-dead where it comes to public health consequences and the physical effects of smoking weed. Whether or not you believe grass is harmful, the state will continue to officially categorize marijuana use as a problem. Millions will be spent on programs to discourage abuse at the same time that it's skimming taxes on sales and handling. The tax revenue (at least at this point) is mostly slated for health and drug-treatment, but WE also suspect that - like always - those funds will be raided for other things.
At a minimum, readers should take time to understand what this initiative actually says before voting. The "decriminalization" of pot has been proposed before, and not all opponents have been squares. The situation is not a dead ringer for prohibition.
Don't be fooled into thinking this is legalization in the true sense, it's not. Have ads been honest? Here in Whatcom County we haven't seen too many. However positive the spin, no one should expect this to be a joyride with Cheech & Chong. It will take few to the happy place they'd really like.
Go - Google, Wiki, and learn what you can about what may be nothing more than another 66 pages of bad regulation.
RSS Feed
