Strategy, timing key to pot legalization vote
SEATTLE (AP) - In the late-1980s heyday of the anti-drug "Just Say No" campaign, a man calling himself "Jerry" appeared on a Seattle talk radio show to criticize U.S. marijuana laws.
An esteemed businessman, he hid his identity because he didn't want to offend customers who - like so many in those days - viewed marijuana as a villain in the ever-raging "war on drugs."
Now, a quarter century later, "Jerry" is one of the main forces behind Washington state's successful initiative to legalize pot for adults over 21. And he no longer fears putting his name to the cause: He's Rick Steves, the travel guru known for his popular guidebooks.
"It's amazing where we've come," says Steves of the legalization measures Washington and Colorado voters approved last month. "It's almost counterculture to oppose us."
A once-unfathomable notion, the lawful possession and private use of pot, becomes an American reality this week when this state's law goes into effect. Thursday is "Legalization Day" here, with a tote-your-own-ounce celebration scheduled beneath Seattle's Space Needle - a nod to the measure allowing adults to possess up to an ounce of pot. Colorado's law is set to take effect by Jan. 5.
How did we get here? From "say no" to "yes" votes in not one but two states?
The answer goes beyond society's evolving views, and growing acceptance, of marijuana as a drug of choice.
In Washington - and, advocates hope, coming soon to a state near you - there was a well-funded and cleverly orchestrated campaign that took advantage of deep-pocketed backers, a tweaked pro-pot message and improbable big-name supporters.
Good timing and a growing national weariness over failed drug laws didn't hurt, either.
"Maybe ... the dominoes fell the way they did because they were waiting for somebody to push them in that direction," says Alison Holcomb, the campaign manager for Washington's measure.
Washington and Colorado, both culturally and politically, offered fertile ground for legalization advocates - Washington for its liberal politics, Colorado for its libertarian streak, and both for their Western independence.
Both also have a history with marijuana law reform. More than a decade ago, they were among the first states to approve medical marijuana.
Still, when it came to full legalization, activists hit a wall. Colorado's voters rejected a measure to legalize up to an ounce of marijuana in 2006. In Washington, organizers in 2010 couldn't make the ballot with a measure that would have removed criminal penalties for marijuana.
Since the 1970 founding of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, reform efforts had centered on the unfairness of marijuana laws to the recreational user - hardly a sympathetic character, Holcomb notes.
That began to change as some doctors extolled marijuana's ability to relieve pain, quell nausea and improve the appetites of cancer and AIDS patients. The conversation shifted in the 1990s toward medical marijuana laws. But even in some states with those laws, including Washington, truly sick people continued to be arrested.
Improved data collection that began with the ramping up of the drug war in the 1980s also helped change the debate. Late last decade, with Mexico's crackdown on cartels prompting horrific bloodshed there and headlines here, activists could point to a stunning fact: In 1991, marijuana arrests made up less than one-third of all drug arrests in the U.S. Now, they make up half - about 90 percent for possession of small amounts - yet pot remains easily available.
"What we figured out is that your average person doesn't necessarily like marijuana, but there's sort of this untapped desire by voters to end the drug war," says Brian Vicente, a Denver lawyer who helped write Colorado's Amendment 64. "If we can focus attention on the fact we can bring in revenue, redirect law enforcement resources and raise awareness instead of focusing on pot, that's a message that works."
With a potentially winning message, the activists needed something else: messengers.
Steves, who lives in the north Seattle suburb of Edmonds, was a natural choice - the "believable, likeable nerd," as he calls himself. Known for his public television and radio shows, as well as his "Europe through the Back Door" guide books, he openly advocated in 2003 for a measure that made marijuana the lowest priority for Seattle police.
He already knew Holcomb, who had been the drug policy director at the American Civil Liberties Union of Washington state. The ACLU chapter recognized that voter education would be crucial to any future reform, especially after polling revealed that many voters didn't even know Washington had a medical marijuana law.
Holcomb helped recruit Steves to star in a 2008 infomercial designed to get people talking about marijuana law reform. The video was aired on late-night television and at forums held across the state, during which experts in drug policy answered questions from audiences.
In November 2009, John McKay, the former Seattle U.S. attorney, agreed to appear on one of those panels. McKay was well respected, from a prominent Republican family and had served as the Justice Department's top prosecutor in western Washington - charged with carrying out U.S. drug laws.
He called for a top-to-bottom review of the nation's drug war and endorsed regulating marijuana like alcohol.
Suddenly, the legalization movement had traction.
Over the next year, a voter initiative drive and legislative efforts gained steam but ultimately failed. California's Proposition 19 legalization measure also failed in 2010. But even with little money and no significant editorial endorsements, in an off-presidential election year with lower youth turnout, Prop 19 received more than 46 percent of the vote.
Holcomb thought: Imagine what Washington could do in a presidential year, with an endorsement from McKay and some money.
So, with the backing of the ACLU's state chapter, Holcomb formed New Approach Washington. In June 2011, the group announced Initiative 502, to legalize up to an ounce of marijuana and to create a system of state-licensed growers, processors and retail stores. It was tailored to gain mainstream support: There would be no home-growing, and there would be a DUI standard designed to be comparable to the 0.08 limit for blood-alcohol content.
The drug also would be taxed at every stage, from growing and processing to selling. State studies were done showing legalization could bring in half a billion dollars a year for schools, health care and substance-abuse prevention.
The list of co-sponsors was unimpeachable: Steves, McKay, Seattle City Attorney Pete Holmes, the former top public health officer for Spokane County, two past presidents of the state bar association, a top University of Washington addiction expert. The Seattle Times' editorial page offered its own endorsement.
National drug-policy reform groups also were focusing on 2012. The New York-based Drug Policy Alliance saw campaigns developing in three states - Washington, Colorado and Oregon - and it had the money on-the-ground advocates so desperately needed. The alliance is funded in part by billionaire and longtime liberal political donor George Soros, who came out in favor of marijuana legalization in 2010.
The organization chipped in more than $1.6 million in Washington. The Washington, D.C.-based Marijuana Policy Project gave $1 million in Colorado.
Then came another big donor. Peter Lewis, the founder of Progressive Insurance, had used marijuana after a leg amputation and had been a big contributor to medical marijuana campaigns. His people initially told Holcomb they didn't think I-502 would pass, but then he offered a match: If they could raise $650,000, he'd kick in $250,000. New Approach Washington met the goal, and Lewis became the campaign's biggest donor, responsible for more than $2 million of the $6 million raised.
The money ensured that Washington's activists could keep their message on air, and they did so effectively.
The first television ad, which aired last summer, featured a middle-aged mom saying that she didn't like marijuana, but that taxing it would bring in money for schools and health care and free up police resources. Among women aged 30 to 50, Holcomb says, support for regulating marijuana jumped about 18 percent.
The next ads featured McKay, former Seattle U.S. Attorney Kate Pflaumer and Charles Mandigo, the former head of the FBI office in Seattle, urging approval of I-502.
Colorado's measure didn't have the big-name endorsements that Washington's did, but the state had other things going for it. For one, it already had the most highly regulated medical marijuana market in the country. There, organizers were careful to appear before news cameras in suits and ties. Ads featured middle-aged women, or schoolchildren who could benefit from marijuana taxes.
Opponents tried to fight back, mounting a $543,000 campaign in Colorado, with backing from a Florida-based anti-drug group and an evangelical Christian group.
In Washington, a small group from the medical marijuana community raised $6,800 to oppose I-502. They criticized the DUI standard as arbitrarily strict and said the measure didn't go far enough because it wouldn't allow home-growing.
A group of nine former heads of the Drug Enforcement Administration urged U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder to publicly oppose the measures, but the DOJ and the White House remained silent.
Instead, Kevin Sabet, a former White House drug policy adviser, served as a counterpoint to the legalization campaigns. The ills of prohibition - the racial disparities in who gets busted, the lifelong consequences of a conviction for landing jobs or student loans - could be solved without legalization, which would increase the availability of marijuana for teens who are most susceptible to becoming addicted, he contended.
Yet such arguments found little support.
"When you hammer away at that message, saying we can save education and make better use of police resources and get rid of cartels, and there's nothing to oppose that, that sounds sensible to people who aren't hearing the other side," Sabet says.
On Nov. 6, I-502 passed with nearly 56 percent. Colorado's Amendment 64, which allows home-growing and does not include a drunken driving standard, passed with 55 percent.
Oregon's Measure 80 ultimately failed. But even with little campaigning behind it, that proposal got nearly 47 percent of the vote.
As they await word about whether the Justice Department will try to block the measures from taking effect, national drug-law reform groups are salivating over their chances in 2014 and 2016.
California? Nevada? Massachusetts?
"Something is happening, and it's not just happening in Washington and Colorado," says Andy Ko, who leads the Campaign for a New Drug Policy at Open Society Foundations. "Marijuana reform is going to happen in this country as older voters fade away and younger voters show up. Legislators see this as something safe to legislate around.
"They see the writing on the wall."
An esteemed businessman, he hid his identity because he didn't want to offend customers who - like so many in those days - viewed marijuana as a villain in the ever-raging "war on drugs."
Now, a quarter century later, "Jerry" is one of the main forces behind Washington state's successful initiative to legalize pot for adults over 21. And he no longer fears putting his name to the cause: He's Rick Steves, the travel guru known for his popular guidebooks.
"It's amazing where we've come," says Steves of the legalization measures Washington and Colorado voters approved last month. "It's almost counterculture to oppose us."
A once-unfathomable notion, the lawful possession and private use of pot, becomes an American reality this week when this state's law goes into effect. Thursday is "Legalization Day" here, with a tote-your-own-ounce celebration scheduled beneath Seattle's Space Needle - a nod to the measure allowing adults to possess up to an ounce of pot. Colorado's law is set to take effect by Jan. 5.
How did we get here? From "say no" to "yes" votes in not one but two states?
The answer goes beyond society's evolving views, and growing acceptance, of marijuana as a drug of choice.
In Washington - and, advocates hope, coming soon to a state near you - there was a well-funded and cleverly orchestrated campaign that took advantage of deep-pocketed backers, a tweaked pro-pot message and improbable big-name supporters.
Good timing and a growing national weariness over failed drug laws didn't hurt, either.
"Maybe ... the dominoes fell the way they did because they were waiting for somebody to push them in that direction," says Alison Holcomb, the campaign manager for Washington's measure.
Washington and Colorado, both culturally and politically, offered fertile ground for legalization advocates - Washington for its liberal politics, Colorado for its libertarian streak, and both for their Western independence.
Both also have a history with marijuana law reform. More than a decade ago, they were among the first states to approve medical marijuana.
Still, when it came to full legalization, activists hit a wall. Colorado's voters rejected a measure to legalize up to an ounce of marijuana in 2006. In Washington, organizers in 2010 couldn't make the ballot with a measure that would have removed criminal penalties for marijuana.
Since the 1970 founding of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, reform efforts had centered on the unfairness of marijuana laws to the recreational user - hardly a sympathetic character, Holcomb notes.
That began to change as some doctors extolled marijuana's ability to relieve pain, quell nausea and improve the appetites of cancer and AIDS patients. The conversation shifted in the 1990s toward medical marijuana laws. But even in some states with those laws, including Washington, truly sick people continued to be arrested.
Improved data collection that began with the ramping up of the drug war in the 1980s also helped change the debate. Late last decade, with Mexico's crackdown on cartels prompting horrific bloodshed there and headlines here, activists could point to a stunning fact: In 1991, marijuana arrests made up less than one-third of all drug arrests in the U.S. Now, they make up half - about 90 percent for possession of small amounts - yet pot remains easily available.
"What we figured out is that your average person doesn't necessarily like marijuana, but there's sort of this untapped desire by voters to end the drug war," says Brian Vicente, a Denver lawyer who helped write Colorado's Amendment 64. "If we can focus attention on the fact we can bring in revenue, redirect law enforcement resources and raise awareness instead of focusing on pot, that's a message that works."
With a potentially winning message, the activists needed something else: messengers.
Steves, who lives in the north Seattle suburb of Edmonds, was a natural choice - the "believable, likeable nerd," as he calls himself. Known for his public television and radio shows, as well as his "Europe through the Back Door" guide books, he openly advocated in 2003 for a measure that made marijuana the lowest priority for Seattle police.
He already knew Holcomb, who had been the drug policy director at the American Civil Liberties Union of Washington state. The ACLU chapter recognized that voter education would be crucial to any future reform, especially after polling revealed that many voters didn't even know Washington had a medical marijuana law.
Holcomb helped recruit Steves to star in a 2008 infomercial designed to get people talking about marijuana law reform. The video was aired on late-night television and at forums held across the state, during which experts in drug policy answered questions from audiences.
In November 2009, John McKay, the former Seattle U.S. attorney, agreed to appear on one of those panels. McKay was well respected, from a prominent Republican family and had served as the Justice Department's top prosecutor in western Washington - charged with carrying out U.S. drug laws.
He called for a top-to-bottom review of the nation's drug war and endorsed regulating marijuana like alcohol.
Suddenly, the legalization movement had traction.
Over the next year, a voter initiative drive and legislative efforts gained steam but ultimately failed. California's Proposition 19 legalization measure also failed in 2010. But even with little money and no significant editorial endorsements, in an off-presidential election year with lower youth turnout, Prop 19 received more than 46 percent of the vote.
Holcomb thought: Imagine what Washington could do in a presidential year, with an endorsement from McKay and some money.
So, with the backing of the ACLU's state chapter, Holcomb formed New Approach Washington. In June 2011, the group announced Initiative 502, to legalize up to an ounce of marijuana and to create a system of state-licensed growers, processors and retail stores. It was tailored to gain mainstream support: There would be no home-growing, and there would be a DUI standard designed to be comparable to the 0.08 limit for blood-alcohol content.
The drug also would be taxed at every stage, from growing and processing to selling. State studies were done showing legalization could bring in half a billion dollars a year for schools, health care and substance-abuse prevention.
The list of co-sponsors was unimpeachable: Steves, McKay, Seattle City Attorney Pete Holmes, the former top public health officer for Spokane County, two past presidents of the state bar association, a top University of Washington addiction expert. The Seattle Times' editorial page offered its own endorsement.
National drug-policy reform groups also were focusing on 2012. The New York-based Drug Policy Alliance saw campaigns developing in three states - Washington, Colorado and Oregon - and it had the money on-the-ground advocates so desperately needed. The alliance is funded in part by billionaire and longtime liberal political donor George Soros, who came out in favor of marijuana legalization in 2010.
The organization chipped in more than $1.6 million in Washington. The Washington, D.C.-based Marijuana Policy Project gave $1 million in Colorado.
Then came another big donor. Peter Lewis, the founder of Progressive Insurance, had used marijuana after a leg amputation and had been a big contributor to medical marijuana campaigns. His people initially told Holcomb they didn't think I-502 would pass, but then he offered a match: If they could raise $650,000, he'd kick in $250,000. New Approach Washington met the goal, and Lewis became the campaign's biggest donor, responsible for more than $2 million of the $6 million raised.
The money ensured that Washington's activists could keep their message on air, and they did so effectively.
The first television ad, which aired last summer, featured a middle-aged mom saying that she didn't like marijuana, but that taxing it would bring in money for schools and health care and free up police resources. Among women aged 30 to 50, Holcomb says, support for regulating marijuana jumped about 18 percent.
The next ads featured McKay, former Seattle U.S. Attorney Kate Pflaumer and Charles Mandigo, the former head of the FBI office in Seattle, urging approval of I-502.
Colorado's measure didn't have the big-name endorsements that Washington's did, but the state had other things going for it. For one, it already had the most highly regulated medical marijuana market in the country. There, organizers were careful to appear before news cameras in suits and ties. Ads featured middle-aged women, or schoolchildren who could benefit from marijuana taxes.
Opponents tried to fight back, mounting a $543,000 campaign in Colorado, with backing from a Florida-based anti-drug group and an evangelical Christian group.
In Washington, a small group from the medical marijuana community raised $6,800 to oppose I-502. They criticized the DUI standard as arbitrarily strict and said the measure didn't go far enough because it wouldn't allow home-growing.
A group of nine former heads of the Drug Enforcement Administration urged U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder to publicly oppose the measures, but the DOJ and the White House remained silent.
Instead, Kevin Sabet, a former White House drug policy adviser, served as a counterpoint to the legalization campaigns. The ills of prohibition - the racial disparities in who gets busted, the lifelong consequences of a conviction for landing jobs or student loans - could be solved without legalization, which would increase the availability of marijuana for teens who are most susceptible to becoming addicted, he contended.
Yet such arguments found little support.
"When you hammer away at that message, saying we can save education and make better use of police resources and get rid of cartels, and there's nothing to oppose that, that sounds sensible to people who aren't hearing the other side," Sabet says.
On Nov. 6, I-502 passed with nearly 56 percent. Colorado's Amendment 64, which allows home-growing and does not include a drunken driving standard, passed with 55 percent.
Oregon's Measure 80 ultimately failed. But even with little campaigning behind it, that proposal got nearly 47 percent of the vote.
As they await word about whether the Justice Department will try to block the measures from taking effect, national drug-law reform groups are salivating over their chances in 2014 and 2016.
California? Nevada? Massachusetts?
"Something is happening, and it's not just happening in Washington and Colorado," says Andy Ko, who leads the Campaign for a New Drug Policy at Open Society Foundations. "Marijuana reform is going to happen in this country as older voters fade away and younger voters show up. Legislators see this as something safe to legislate around.
"They see the writing on the wall."
Here's the million dollar question: why would anyone by their pot from a state approved dealer and pay, what, 75% tax, when they can get it from their local dealer tax free? Pot isn't like alcohol. It's a weed, put it in some dirt and it will grow.
@Bianca Do you buy alcohol in the black market because it's cheaper? What about other products? Would you buy a stolen car? Most people will go with legal stuff for many reasons. Mines are: I don't want to give money to criminals. I want to be able to choose among different strains and know what I'm buying, make sure I can get a consistent product, with the same strength and propotion of CBD and THC so I can achieve the desired effect. I want it to be organic and free of dangerous pesticides and fertilizers, I like to cook with it, I don't want to eat chemicals. Where is my millon dollar? :)
@Damian  Nice reply. I also like the convenience of going to the store and picking this up instead of calling my connection to see if he is holding and going to his house and sharing my pot to thank him for scoring for me, etc, etc etc.
There are a lot of misconceptions on this forum. 1. It may still be federally illegal but they can not force a state to enforce a prohibition. So they can stop the taxing part of the measure but not the legalization of it. 2. People who have a medical mj card will continue to be able to grow and supply others with the card. This remains legal. Start reading the facts that have been provided.Â
The question I keep asking no one seems to have answer is how will a seller ever get insurance? You canât get insurance for a activity that is illegalâ¦doesnât matter if the state has no lawâ¦as long as the feds do any claim made doesnât have to be paid for by the insurer as every policy ever written excludes claims for losses incurred while committing crime. You canât rob a bank, get injured and make claim to your insurance company. As I recall that was the reason several shops closed up as the landlord owning the building couldnât get insurance or was threatened with loosing it on the building.
@sokala  The voters were sold a boat load of not much. They were told that the state could tax and regulate the sale of pot but there are a lot of hinderances to the state every being able to sell and tax pot but meanwhile, possession of less than an ounce of pot is now legal. Its the proverbial win/win situation to us pot smokers. We can do what we always have been doing but we can just do it legally now. The Fed can pound sand. There is no way the Fed will go after indvidual pot smokers themselves.
People really have to use their head when using alcohol and marijuana at the same time .......... you can quickly become a wide awake drunk. Your time impaired goes on much longer giving you more time to be a train wreck.
 @SEATTLITERONÂ
Â
You don't know what you're talking about. Neither is a stimulant...like coffee...and both marijuana and alcohol possess a sedative effect which do not compound one another.
 Actually alcohol is a stimulant during the first few ounces then swings to being a depressant, how your body process's sugar will depend on how long it stimulates the person, different people will respond differently the THC and can swing ether way. In any case the abusers will abuse and others will maintain .... I have twenty years of abuse followed by eighteen years of clean and sober, I have accomplished more in any one year of sobriety than all of the first twenty years of partying put together ... It's just my choice, everyone has a choice.
If the state was smart and its not they would have stockpiled a bunch of marijuana and started to sell on the first day the 6th....but of course that would take forethought.
 @Kugan They already have a stockpile........it's all in evidence holding.......
@Susabelle @Kugan  I like my pot fresh and sticky.
Cannabis will be widely available on the black market for the next year till the liquor control board gets things worked out. Hopefully law enforcement will just stay out of the way until rules are set. The people that will be supplying stores will have a pretty large stockpile built up for opening day. The big question will be, is the public really ready for wide spread use? Hopefully we try and set a good example for the rest of the country and everyone tries to act like an adult and responsible while partaking.
@Blindman  I doubt we see a large increase in usage. The people who want to smoke pot already are.Â
This will just be an exercise to see how close lawmakers are willing to align themselves with the reality that people smoke pot right now and they get it from some place. It looks like that "some place" is going to remain illegal until the state can issue licenses and create a list. But there'll be no anonymity. When the media gets wind of who's getting licensed, it will be on the 5 o'clock news. This is going to be a long story, nothing cut and dried :) about it.
This comment has been deleted
 @Wildstar technically it will still be illegal even after the distribution networks are in place. Pot is still illegal Federally
 @WildstarÂ
Â
Absolutely correct! The new law doesn't permit individuals to grow for personal use and without a legal source there are only "illegal" outlets for procurement.Â
Â
Let my people grow freely.
I guess I am part of the "counter culture".
I've got my old rolling papers and a book of matches. The phonograph has some oldies queued up.
Â
Where can I buy my ounce on Thursday???Â
@WA_State_spends_2_much Craigslist...
 @WA_State_spends_2_muchÂ
Â
Easy just find an illegal source...just the way that the new law intended it to be.Â
@Icarus Absolutely. We knew that the state was never going to be able to sell and tax this but at least we are free to carry (less than an ounce) and smoke.
Beyond the legal issues there are the employment issues with how is an employer to enforce the typical drug policy. Most employers have a zero tolerance policy and random screening. While I have not had issues with this in the past as I have never used weed I might give it a try later if I do not have much to fear with losing my job.
 @Charl317 First off its still federally illegal. Second a company can pretty much (as long as it doesn't violate protected statuses) put whatever they like in their conduct policies so if you company doesn't like it find a job that does.
 @Charl317 Perhaps the real issue should be to stop allowing employers to abuse the 4th amendment. Why do we give employers the power to search us without a warrant? Why do we allow employers such intrusions into our personal lives when the constitution prohibits it?
Â
Read the constitution carefully, and nowhere does it specifically limit your 4th amendment rights to government agencies, or police. Nowhere does is say that it's OK for employers to violate your person, papers and belongings, but it's not OK for the police. That's solely a Supreme Court interpretation of the constitution to give employers proxy rights in the drug war.
@ Bellevue Scott I am an employer. We have sharp things, hot things, heavy things and crushing things which require your focused and non-distracted attention during operation. We also deliver things.  I pay premium (higher) rates for L&I Insurance incase one of my workers is injured on the job. We have a zero tollerance drug/alcohol policy. Even if it is doctor prescribed. It is for the employee's safety and benefit as well as their coworkers and our customers and those we share the road with. We do random drug screenings and if you are injured on the job you are immediately drug tested. This is all disclosed in the pre-hire interview and you sign a form stating that you agree to this. If you don't want to submit to this; don't work for me. It's a free country and that is your right and choice.
Â
Also, we have a zero tollerance theft policy- that one is unwritten. If you steal from me, I WILL FIRE YOU as well as prosecute you to the fullest extent of the law. Oddly enough, that policy doesn't need to be written or signed as a contingency of hiring. It is just generally understood.
@Content_People While I do smoke pot, I am self employed. If I wanted to work for someone, I would meet their requirements BUT in respect to your zero tollerance drug/alcohol policy, I assume that some of your employees drink when not at work.Â
Â
Â
According to the CDC, in 2006 (most recent year with data available), 75% of adults age 18 and over in the United States had used alcohol at some point in their lives. 61% were current drinkers
Â
Â
Alcohol is metabolized at the rate of .015 of blood alcohol concentration (BAC) every hour so even someone legally intoxicated (.08) would be sober in less than 5 hours and not show up on your "drug tests". When I smoke pot, I am usually not high after a couple hours. This means that as long as I dont drink or smoke within a REASONABLE time before coming to work or during work, what I do on my own time should be NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS.
@Bellevue Scott @Charl317 simple enough if you don't like the rules of the job get a new one or be a boss and do what you want its a free country
 @Bellevue Scott  @Charl317 I guarantee you that armed forces members stationed in WA state will continue to be screened ans they should and offenders will continue to be prosecuted.
And what is the news exactly? Pot is a hot issue right now, komo just puts a picture of it and write whatever no-news comes to mind and they get readers...
I would love to light up in front of a cop someday and feel safe that i can't be arrested or made a criminal for my adult decision.
@fumblefacedolt  Just dont drive afterward when he can see you. The bar is set pretty low right now in terms of level of intoxication and just a puff or 2 would put you over the edge if you werent already.
 @fumblefacedoltÂ
You have high aspirations in life.
 @realdeal599  @fumblefacedolt @realdeal599 it must hurt to live with such a stick up your butt and be such a stuff shirt blow hard if i had to guess you are at least 50 years old
Â
 @Randy Matthew  Possibly realdeal is, but on the other hand, it must really hurt to be unable to type a grammatically correct and coherent sentence.
@fumblefacedolt I saw a guy smoking in front of a cop in LA a couple of years ago, no issue whatsoever.
As opposed to drinkers, I wonder if pot smokers won't be as belligerent and stupid. Â Many of my friends in college graduated with BS's in engineering and technology, while smoking their heads off.
 @31F That says a lot about the standards of American higher education
@Larry*X*K @31F "Higher" education indeed :D young ppl at that age experiment, do crazy stuff, it's part of life. It's nature's wisdom to make young humans push limits and take risks, humanity would never evolve otherwise.
 @Larry*X*K  @31F watch a pro football game and see how much alcohol is sold....
Â
THAT says more about our society as a whole.
Â
Sad...
 @31F *nix was developed under the influence. thats why most command line names don't make sense. LOL
The beauty of having a mind is the ability to change it.
There is no way to field test in in the case of a possible driving under the influence situation. How can anyone in the law enforcement community be o.k with a substance that's still illegal on the federal level being legal on the state level?
 @Steve Giovanis The beauty of it is that it really doesn't matter if law enforcement is okay with it or not. They are there to police the laws, and now State and Local have a new law to police.
Besides, I bet most officers would rather have pot impaired drivers than drunk drivers on the roads.Â
 @RedRiverBand  @Steve Giovanis "Besides, I bet most officers would rather have pot impaired drivers than drunk drivers on the roads."
Why? Impaired is impaired. That's like saying if you're gonna drive drunk at least get drunk by drinking beer only. Total non-sense
 @UtterReality  @RedRiverBand  @Steve Giovanis keep saying that to yourself
 @Larry*X*K  @Steve Giovanis I never stated they wanted any kind of impaired drivers, my point is that a drunk driver is far more dangerous and deadly on the road. To be honest, they probably don't want any foreigners on the roads either. We all know the traffic they like to cause.
 @Larry*X*K  @RedRiverBand  @Steve Giovanis Alcohol is a CNS depressant.  Marijuana isn't.  Marijuana doesn't impair motor control to nearly the degree that alcohol does.Â
@Steve Giovanis So true unfortunately, by letting anyone possess or drive under any level of influence are the police not accessories to a class 1 narcotic federal crime?
I will be up there for the Christmas and New Year holiday.
Â
I plant on testing the new law.
Â
It will just be a test.
 @sunnysandiego What are you going to plant? A new law? Huh?
@sunnysandiego Thanks for the warning ;)
Ha! Ditto that!
 @SgtPepperSpray you have been warned.
Â
last time I was up there in January it snowed ALOT
Â
plan on preparing