Pot grower sues to stop legalization measure

SEATTLE -- The state's most famous purveyor of medical marijuana and others have sued to keep a marijuana legalization initiative off the November ballot.
Claiming Initiative 502 could be "ruinous" to the state budget, opponents filed a lawsuit late last week in King County Superior Court claiming the ballot should warn voters of the measure's costs.
Evaluators at the state Office of Financial Management have not yet said whether they believe the measure -- which would regulate marijuana production, distribution and possession - will have positive or negative financial impact if passed by voters.
Contacted Thursday, civil liberties attorney and I-502 supporter Alison Holcomb noted state law gives the Office of Financial Management until Aug. 10 to issue its opinion. She said she remains "confident the agency will meet its deadline."
Standing behind the lawsuit is Steve Sarich, a medical marijuana advocate who gained notoriety in 2010 when he shot a teenage burglar attempting to break into his Kirkland home and pot grow.
Sarich, owner of CannaCare, and one of five young would-be burglars traded shots during the apparent break-in attempt. One of the teenage assailants had worked for Sarich, and two others had obtained medical marijuana licenses through CannaCare; all five ultimately pleaded guilty to charges related to the break-in.
The lawsuit is the latest move by pot-supporting opponents of the pro-legalization initiative.
Backed by numerous elected officials and several former law enforcement officials, I-502 has drawn criticism from anti-initiative activists who claim it would penalize unimpaired drivers who'd previously smoked marijuana.
It is also apparent the regulatory framework put forward by I-502 would undercut the need for medical marijuana providers, particularly those offering prescriptions to "patients" with dubious ailments. If the initiative passes in November, adults over 21 years old would no longer have to obtain a medical marijuana license to avoid prosecution for drug possession.
Filing the lawsuit on July 13, Sarich was joined by medical marijuana advocates John C. Worthington and Arthur West, as well as Saroj Sidhu, a Bellingham man arrested during a string of busts at medical marijuana dispensaries alleged by police to be nothing more than drug fronts. The men are described in the lawsuit as officers with No on I-502, an anti-initiative political action committee.
Writing the court without the assistance of an attorney, the initiative opponents asserted state evaluators have conspired in support of the initiative by refusing to produce a fiscal review.
"The (Office of Financial Management) deliberately suppressed the foreseeable financial impacts of I-502," the opponents alleged in their lawsuit. They went on to claim the initiative will have "unknown and possibly ruinous costs, the full and reasonably foreseeable extent of which have been deliberately suppressed under a cloud of politically motivated and partisan misdirection."
The opponents also faulted the state Attorney General's Office for not launching an investigation into the conduct of the Office of Financial Management. According to their lawsuit, they previously requested such an investigation but were denied.
Sarich and the other opponents have asked that I-502 be withheld from the ballot until the Office of Financial Management provides a "bona fide" fiscal note. They've also asked to be reimbursed for their expenses.
Attorneys for the state have not yet responded to the lawsuit. A response is expected by early August.
Claiming Initiative 502 could be "ruinous" to the state budget, opponents filed a lawsuit late last week in King County Superior Court claiming the ballot should warn voters of the measure's costs.
Evaluators at the state Office of Financial Management have not yet said whether they believe the measure -- which would regulate marijuana production, distribution and possession - will have positive or negative financial impact if passed by voters.
Contacted Thursday, civil liberties attorney and I-502 supporter Alison Holcomb noted state law gives the Office of Financial Management until Aug. 10 to issue its opinion. She said she remains "confident the agency will meet its deadline."
Standing behind the lawsuit is Steve Sarich, a medical marijuana advocate who gained notoriety in 2010 when he shot a teenage burglar attempting to break into his Kirkland home and pot grow.
Sarich, owner of CannaCare, and one of five young would-be burglars traded shots during the apparent break-in attempt. One of the teenage assailants had worked for Sarich, and two others had obtained medical marijuana licenses through CannaCare; all five ultimately pleaded guilty to charges related to the break-in.
The lawsuit is the latest move by pot-supporting opponents of the pro-legalization initiative.
Backed by numerous elected officials and several former law enforcement officials, I-502 has drawn criticism from anti-initiative activists who claim it would penalize unimpaired drivers who'd previously smoked marijuana.
It is also apparent the regulatory framework put forward by I-502 would undercut the need for medical marijuana providers, particularly those offering prescriptions to "patients" with dubious ailments. If the initiative passes in November, adults over 21 years old would no longer have to obtain a medical marijuana license to avoid prosecution for drug possession.
Filing the lawsuit on July 13, Sarich was joined by medical marijuana advocates John C. Worthington and Arthur West, as well as Saroj Sidhu, a Bellingham man arrested during a string of busts at medical marijuana dispensaries alleged by police to be nothing more than drug fronts. The men are described in the lawsuit as officers with No on I-502, an anti-initiative political action committee.
Writing the court without the assistance of an attorney, the initiative opponents asserted state evaluators have conspired in support of the initiative by refusing to produce a fiscal review.
"The (Office of Financial Management) deliberately suppressed the foreseeable financial impacts of I-502," the opponents alleged in their lawsuit. They went on to claim the initiative will have "unknown and possibly ruinous costs, the full and reasonably foreseeable extent of which have been deliberately suppressed under a cloud of politically motivated and partisan misdirection."
The opponents also faulted the state Attorney General's Office for not launching an investigation into the conduct of the Office of Financial Management. According to their lawsuit, they previously requested such an investigation but were denied.
Sarich and the other opponents have asked that I-502 be withheld from the ballot until the Office of Financial Management provides a "bona fide" fiscal note. They've also asked to be reimbursed for their expenses.
Attorneys for the state have not yet responded to the lawsuit. A response is expected by early August.
these weedtards like sarish are so blatant in their greed they think they are showing how 'concerned' they are for patients, perhaps they should consider their own business operations and sell to people who really need mmj. how about finding quality of patients and employees instead of running a drug dealing operation, clean up the mess in your own backyard sarish and quit trying to block progress over your selfish greed. or you can continue to waste money on a frivolous lawsuit in hopes you can make the most profit while it is still unavailable to the public, because once it is, all of sarish's 'patients' wont have to go to him anymore, they can just waltz down the the 7-11 and get it instead.....Â
By the way guys... THC derived from the plant cannabis sativa L is now a schedule III as of late 2010.
Â
It was found to have the same efficacy as its synthetic counter part...hence, ordered rule making for public distribution the head cheese herself of the dea made it so. NATURAL DERIVED THC NOW HAS MEDICAL USE IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA...Â
Â
I sent john c. worthington all the info on it...
Steve and his merry band tooting their horns again like in the suit to stop sb 5073 claiming we have no arrest protection... seems having a lawyer might behoove them this time
What happened to Otto? We lost like a quarter of the posts! lol
They want to trade possession for DUI plain and simple. The lawyers can't let true legalization happen because they will lose too much money. NORML has and always will represent the interests of lawyers. Even when Steinborn the true activist tries to emerge the prime directive of NORML redirects the organization.
If CBN and CBD counter the effects of THC, why isn't the blood test for CDN and CBN too??????????????
If THC causes impairment why don't commercial drivers have tests for Marinol????
Jeff Steinborn..of NORML..wrote a great piece on I-502.So good we posted it on our site. NORML is wrong on this one.Steinborn had it right the first time.
Yes on I -502! It legalizes an ounce for all adults, 21 and over, as a RIGHT.
Â
Put simply, driving is a state licensed PRIVILEGE. Driving is not a RIGHT. If you get pulled over today for driving like a moron, and if you smell like pot, you get a DUI. Per Se or not.
Â
DUI's do not take your license, only refusal of a blood test will cause that administrative action by the DOL.
Â
Just like if you don't pay child support - you lose your drivers license. Period.
Â
The RIGHT to posses, even just an ounce, outweighs the PRIVILEGE of driving.
Â
The smallest rights trump the largest privilege.
Â
It is confusing how those (who are privileged patients and licensed drivers) think they deserve elite protection at the expense of the absolute rights of everyone of 21. Fascinating yet twisted moral reasoning.
 @Washington NORML The right against self incrimination is the issue. I don't care if its a per se Nyquil law. Wrong is wrong. And so is NORML
 @sofunny Check your premise, as it is incorrect. The 5th amendment to the constitution to which you refer has nothing to do with a DUI, whether it's attributed to Alcohol, Nyquil, Pot, prescription Painkillers, etc. I agree wrong is wrong, and you are wrong. Think for yourself.
 @sofunny Again, you are wrong. And, your logic is not linear. If you don't understand the difference between rights and privileges, that you just don't get it. We are talking about an administrative DOL action to your license, not imprisonment to your person. The 5th doesn't apply, or it would already be applied in every DUI case.
Â
I-502 fully legalizes an ounce, it doesn't decriminalize it. It makes an ounce of possession a RIGHT fully legal under state law, if you are over 21. Period! No arrest. No crime. No foul.
Â
If you get a boot to your neck, it is because of a bad choice you have made in the name of your own idea of freedom and liberty - which may run the gamut from an idea which is accurate to one which is considered sociopathic. (i.e. Ghandi vs. the uni-bomber).
Â
Further, this argument, which has been hashed and re hashed Ad Nauseam since I-502 was announced, is a dead horse. If you don't understand the English language which defines the difference between rights and privileges, then you won't ever get it.
Â
Your lack of logic is illustrated by your assumptions and/or projections of that which you say "I" believe - when the reality is that is what "you" think. And, your tone is more than immature and illogical, it is also offensive.
 @Washington NORML When my own body can b forced to testify against me, that is a violation of my right against self incrimination.  When a per se charge removes my rights to due process, that is a violation of my rights.
Â
You do no have to add a new law to repeal existing ones.  But what you want is a new way for recreational cannabis users to be able to acquire some cannabis from the State.  I believe in freedom and liberty, you believe in the government making a buck while keeping their boots on our necks.
This comment has been deleted
 @OttoMatick Right because once the State has a source of revenue through their channel, they will not shut down the others. 502 is not about liberty, its about making a buck while not restoring any.
Â
Have you ever received compensation in any way shape or form associated with the I-502 process BTW?
This comment has been deleted
@sofunny @ottomatick:Â
Â
But that's just Otto - he claims to have tattooed "made in American" on the soles of all his children when they were infants, and then called me names because I said it was child abuse to deliberately cause that sort of pain to a newborn.
 @OttoMatick People "like me"? What exactly would that be? I love how you have to get all aggro and personal.  I feel badly for you.
 @OttoMatick Jesus was a Semite, so darker completion. Your point? Would it matter if he was Asian? Besides, what does Jesus have to do with this anyway? I mean besides the whole anointing oil deal.
 @OttoMatick And what the hell does race have to do with anything?Â
 @OttoMatick I didn't found the country or set the Constitution as law of the land. But the fact is, our rights are due to our existence, not due to any document forged by man. The founding documents of our country recognize that as the basis for our government. Along with the desire to minimize government control and influence into an individual's life. Â
Â
Government was a necessary tool to protect the individual liberty via military response and other items that necessitate mass cooperation and coordination. These necessary items were delineated and the government was supposed to be limited to them. All while recognizing the dangers of centralized power and the tendency of people to corrupt systems they are a part of.
Â
And if you had your authorization you could have some. Â But now you can hope I-502 passes so you can wait for a supply that the Feds will never allow to arrive hits your 7-11 for $75 per pack of schwaggy joints.
 @OttoMatick Rights in the USA are granted by divine authority, not that of politicians. The politicians abridge rights. Every law passed is an infringement of your rights by definition. God giveth and man taketh.
Â
I pay a physician, just as I do for my other medical care. I pay a dentist for my dental work, and I pay a barber to cut my hair. If I want to cut my own hair, should the government stop me? Tax me for it? Raid my house and shoot my dog?
 @OttoMatick I'd rather keep mine. Its mine, not the governments.  Just like my rights are mine, not given to me by them.Â
Â
Silly tyrants, rights are for citizens!
This comment has been deleted
 @OttoMatick Too bad.Â
VOTE NO ON I-502!! Read it... really read the the inititive... if you are an MMJ patient or provider in this state (WASHINGTON) YOU DO NOT want 502 to pass!!! VOTE NO!!! Please please do some research and dont let the ignorant masses influence your decision.
This comment has been deleted
@OttoMatick HAHA... nobody is keeping you from growing your own... this state has the BEST MMJ laws in the country... get with it man. I dont grow for profit. Period. I grow my own meds and my girls meds. Thats it. Period. This dude OBVIOUSLY hasnt even read the Inititive... I would think you, as a MMJ patient would be more informed than you are.
Personal attacks? Im sorry my opinions offend you. LOL Id grow for you know problem. Im filled up with plant limits and got all the recs I can handle right now. Id be more than willing to keep in touch tho and if I ever have room I can do somethin for ya.Â
Â
nwgt.org
greenbeanzseeds.com Â
I DONT CHARGE for meds. Read my last post. I have a regular job that Ive been at for 6 years and make my money from that. I DO NOT PROFIT from MJ. Period. A dealer? That is rich. Far from it. Like I said... YOU KNOW NOTHING and are just spittin sheep led reteric. If the GOV tells you its better to jump off the cliff w/o a parachute you gonna do that too??Â
 @OttoMatick  @MMJAdvocate I-502 does not let you grow.  Have you even read it?
 @OttoMatick  @MMJAdvocateÂ
The initiative would legalize use of cannabis purchased from state authorized sources for adults 21 and over and focus law enforcement resources on DUI prosecution as well as violent and property crimes. Unlicensed cannabis will still be illegal, including personal grows in one's own home, except for medical grows which would remain legal under RCW 69.51A.
I-502 is NOT a "legalization" initiative! Â 1 drop of poison and the whole drink is toxic! Â Vote NO on 502! Â We can do better!
This comment has been deleted
Its ignorant ass ppl like you that are gonna screw over the provider and patient in this scenario. I wish uniformed ppl like you would keep their BS off the internet!! Legalization is THE LAST thing we want as patients. Decriminlization is THE ONLY WAY TO GO!! The ONLY reason that the "higher ups" in this state want legalization is FOR THE MONEY!! They see that $22 million they could be makin on taxes every year (projected). They give two suirts about the sick ppl that this plant REALLY works for. It ALL about money to this state... that is SAD!!
This comment has been deleted
 @MMJAdvocate Have you considered the public attitudes of MJ over the years? They have improved but still, the fact that 37% opponents remain tell me this is still a wishy washy matter. Beggars can't be choosers. Legalize it now and amend the bill later. Otherwise attitudes will decline. If you find this insane then look at gay marriage and medical coverage policies. Constant repealing of bills have caused political and social unrest on these matters. Human beings adapt, they should not be greedy.
your opinions could never offend me. Ignorance doesnt offend me. Its just irritating when folks talk about stuff they have no idea what they are talking about... they just heard it was a good idea from watching some show or the news and seeing that all the "hype" about how good it would be to legalize MJ. I dont disagree with it HAVING to be legalized and removed from the sch 1 drug list. Just not legalized the way it is written in I-502... we can get somethin better done.
 @MMJAdvocate Legalization is the process of removing a legal prohibition against something which is currently not legal.
Â
Decriminalization  is the abolition of criminal penalties in relation to certain acts, perhaps retroactively, though perhaps regulated permits or fines might still apply
Â
So, again, why do you want to keep cannabis illegal? We should just decriminalize slavery for example.
I for one dont think it should be illegal in ANY form. Its a plant for cryin out loud. A weed at that. It has proven scientific healing abilities. The GOV even knows that... thats why they hold patents on CBDs. Its still why its a sch 1 drug. The GOV knows what they are doing. Legalizing it would get us one step closer to what the GOV wants... TOTAL control. Period.
This comment has been deleted
@OttoMatick --I only hope that most users are as responsible as you seem to be.
 @OttoMatick There is no real way to fight a per se DUI. You are not truly entiled to a defense.  that is why its a no-go for anyone concerned about Constituional rights and other mundane issues like liberty.
Â
What Does the Term âPer Seâ Mean in My DUI Charge?
In almost every state, a conviction for DUI is permissible in court based on a DUI per se prosecution. This means the breathalyzer (or blood test) test at the time of the arrest recorded your BAC to be above the legal limit and thus no other factors matter; you are automatically guilty of DUI.
Â
In order for the court to prosecute you on a per se DUI charge, the BAC of the driver must be known and recorded at the time of the arrest.If the charge is based on a field sobriety test alone, the defendant has a right to contest the DUI charge.
Â
In some cases, the defendant may be charged with both a DUI and a DUI Per Se for the same offense. In most cases, this is done to ensure the prosecution a conviction based on the alternative charges.
Â
P.S. 502 is NOT legalization. Â Its decriminalization of small amounts for purchase by the masses. Â This is NOT the same thing as legalization.
This comment has been deleted
 @OttoMatick I have no ownership or employment with any retail cannabis business (including authorization clinics). In fact, I do not particularly think most of them are well run.
Â
Our ability to provide proper services (medical or recreational) with full business concepts is hindered by the legal issues.  With true legalization these guys would have to compete with competent business and agricultural professionals.  Costs would plummet and quality would increase.  The element that is happy to be criminal (as opposed to being criminal due to laws against cannabis) will be pushed out of the business due to inability to compete.
Â
I mean, how expensive are tomatoes? The ONLY reason cannabis is expensive is due to the laws.
This comment has been deleted
 @OttoMatick I-502 does not do that. Growing is not covered.
Â
Only buying a "pack of joints" at the State approved store with state controlled supply chain. Of which you will not be a part.
How do I take my name off the 502 initiative since I didn't have all the info when I signed it?
 @granny_mac:Â
Â
An initiative is NOT a vote - you can still vote against 502. An initiative is simply a list of people who are registered vvoters who said "yes, I think the people should vote on this".
Â
I hope people woill read the FULL contents of the initiative & what is does and does not do before they vote.Â
Â
The initiative could have submitted 500,000 signature - and still fail based on the actual vote. I am voting NO, and I hope that you do as well.
Take it out of schedule I in the Washington State controlled substances act. Whizz in the feds cornflakes and get real legalization. quit living the lie.
When to U.S.D.O.T. released guidelines for Marinol they decided to declare the drug tests negative, and determined their were no impairment standards that were needed. If there was a problem the professional drivers would have been the first place it would have shown up.Furthermore CBD and CDN levels counteract the effects of THC.so any impairment test via blood has to take CBN and CBd into account. Just testing for THC to determine impairment considering Marinol apparantly didn't impair commercial driver enough to warrant im-plementing a testing program, and not testing for CBN or CBD, makes the DUI provision a joke.
Regardless of this schmucks opinion..... The Federal Law is the law of the land..... illegal or legal you can never stop people from growing, selling or smoking marijuana...... Do what you like and forget the bs pertaining to marijuana!
@Funky-Munky
Â
Sounds good n all,but the reality is they have to bribe the states with federal grants to get cooperative federalism.Please read the Anti commandeering doctrine and Gonzales v. Oregon. Raich is ancient history. Sorry copper.
 @John Worthington Isn't that the whole point of the Federal income tax? Reverse the money/power dynamic and put the states under the Federal thumb.
Â
Don't you think had the founders intended the Fed to regularly dole out money to the States they would have put it in the Constitution? Along with a mechanism for acquiring said money from the citizenry?Â
 @Funky-MunkyÂ
 @sofunnyÂ
Â
The federal thumb took a whack on it when they tried to force states to make gun laws, nuclear waste and immigration laws. Please read the anti commandeering doctrine..U.S.v. New York U.S.v. Printz.. cannabis laws would be no different. If we took it out of schedule I on a state level the feds would have to strip the state of Washington of its authority to police controlled substances. BUt they would have to strip every other state as well and enforce the law by themselves..which they d0o no have the resources to do.
Â
That is why they had to resort to conditioning federal funds. I am your huckleberry. I don't have a clinic,collective or whatever. I am just a guy that tried to grow 6 plants and had two drug task forces,the navy and the National guard come to my house. What is my cash cow????
Until the cops come up with a real way to see if you are CURRENTLY high while driving this has to be voted NO.
 @virtual anomaly I don't care if you are "high", are you impaired (regardless of reason) is the real issue.  And impairment is not determined via a blood test, but by practical examination. I mean, why is it that my body can testify against me again (State v. Spell is the answer)? I mean, I can even be charged with a separate crime for refusing to be tested!
Â
Unless there is a blood test for impairment, stop with the per se DUI nonsense which tramples our rights against self-incrimination.
@sofunny What do you suggest? People could be "impaired" because they are tired, or just uncoordinated...should they all get DUIs? I could also argue that I am not impaired with a .08 BAC or that someone else is impaired at .04 BAC. We are in agreement that a blood test for marijuana is not the answer, but how to define "impaired" is a vital question...
 @virtual anomaly Exactly, and if suspected of being impaired a field test should be performed.  If you fail, you can opt for blood testing or other documentation, just like making a statement when arrested.  If they want my blood they can go to a judge and get a search warrant for it. Just like if they wanted to look in my locked glovebox or trunk. Otherwise, treat these tests the same as statements to police, its up to the person being arrested and their lawyer.
Â
I simply believe the per se statutes are too impringing on our rights.  Let a DUI be dealt with the same as any other crime.  I'm not even mentioning htat what they test for with cannabis isn't even the cannabis, but a compound produced by your own body.
Â
Imagine if there was a mandatory blood test for speeding,  how many people would support it? If a cop suspected you may have been speeding at some point, tey can draw your blood and based on results convict you of a crime.  with no defense in court, as its a per se charge.
Â
You either are a danger to others or not.  That is evidenced by observable behavior. Just like any other crime.
And if your driving is bad enough, you can already be charged with reckless driving whatever the cause is...
@sofunny I agree with what you're saying in principle, but I find it impractical. You're suggesting a system that is too subjective, basically leaving it to the discretion of the arresting officer. The goal is a straightforward rule regarding marijuana and driving.
Â
If they could develop a test that tells if you've smoked in say the last two hours that would be perfect. If you smoke you can't drive for two hours, simple, straightforward.
Â
As for the tired, old, or opiate induced weariness.....I just don't know, that's been a question for a long time. I would like if you had to retake the driving exam after a certain age, but that doesn't do anything for tiredness or other drugs which could impair your driving.
 @virtual anomaly And if you fail, that is not a per se situation.  You can then use blood tests and evidence to counter it. They were replaced with per se as its easier to prosecute, gets the prison census up, and sells equipment. All while trampling our rights by denying due process and forcing our bodies to testify against us.
Â
And again, what protects us from the opiate user?  Those taking flu medicine? The sleep deprived?  The person who broke their legs and is swerving all over? Or the too old or lacking in cognitive processes to safely operate a motor vehicle?
Â
Again, what is important? That a person is impaired or the cause? Ease of prosecution or Constitutional protections? Prison industry pofits or idividual liberty?
Â
Again, I'm not saying people should drive stoned/drunk/stupid/sleepy. Â I'm saying regardless of why they are impaired, if they are, it should all be equally treated.
@sofunny I'm familiar with field-sobriety tests, and anyone who's ever taken them knows that you could easily fail in a completely sober state. They never hold up in court which is why other tests were implemented for DUIs.Â
Â
The easiest thing they can do is say no driving while high on marijuana, being high implies impairment. Now they just need a test to see if you are high on marijuana at the present moment.
 @virtual anomaly I didn't say it, but yes.  If you are driving unsafely and are impaired for ANY reason, that should be a crime. Reckless driving and operating a motor vehicle while impaired are the issue.Â
 @virtual anomaly It is defined via the "field sobriety test" that is designed to determine if drivers are impaired.  You know, how it was done before the breathalyzer and prison lobby got a hold of the  issue. This would be on the tails of observing unsafe driving.  Remember, DUI should in most cases be linked to unsafe driving charges which triggered the evaluation.
Â
Its not perfect, but neither is estimating impairment based on a blood test. At least this way my rights against self incrimination and right to due process are respected.
Â
http://www.nhtsa.gov/people/injury/alcohol/sfst/appendix_a.htm
The Standardized Field Sobriety Test (SFST) is a battery of three tests administered and evaluated in a standardized manner to obtain validated indicators of impairment and establish probable cause for arrest. These tests were developed as a result of research sponsored by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and conducted by the Southern California Research Institute. A formal program of training was developed and is available through NHTSA to help law enforcement officers become more skillful at detecting DWI suspects, describing the behavior of these suspects, and presenting effective testimony in court. Formal administration and accreditation of the program is provided through the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP). The three tests of the SFST are:
Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus (HGN), Walk-and-Turn (WAT), and One-Leg Stand (OLS).
These tests are administered systematically and are evaluated according to measured responses of the suspect.
Â