Will Washington become first state to OK marijuana sales?

SEATTLE (AP) - Washington state may be on the verge of becoming the first in the nation to let adults over 21 buy taxed, inspected marijuana at state-licensed shops.
It might not clear up more than a decade of confusion that resulted from the state's medical marijuana law, or reverse the proliferation of dispensaries. But supporters say passing Initiative 502 on Nov. 6 could make drug laws more reasonable, prevent thousands of arrests a year, and bring Washington hundreds of millions of dollars to help pay for schools, health care and basic government services.
It could also set up a big fight with the federal government.
Voters in Colorado and Oregon are considering similar measures. But based on polls, Washington's initiative might stand the best chance of passing. The measure has drawn slim organized opposition and gained support from some former federal law enforcement officers. The campaign has raised $4.1 million.
"There's a real disconnect with pot," said Brooke Thompson, a retired teacher from Bainbridge Island who found marijuana innocuous when she smoked it as a young adult. "It's been criminalized and criminals are making money on it. The state could be making money on it, and using the taxes to go into education. It seems like a win-win, and it would be nice for Washington to be the testing ground on this."
"Testing ground" is the right phrase. Washington could become a laboratory in easing the nation's drug war, which has cost more than $1 trillion and hundreds of thousands of lives in the past 40 years while doing little to dent demand.
Just as likely, it could bring on a protracted fight with the federal government. Marijuana remains illegal under U.S. law, and when state and federal laws conflict, federal law takes precedence. The Justice Department has kept mum, but if I-502 passes, many lawyers believe the DOJ is likely to try to block the law on the grounds that it frustrates the Controlled Substances Act.
That could leave just part of the initiative standing: decriminalization of up to an ounce of pot under state law, with no way to buy it legally, and a driving-under-the-influence standard that opponents consider arbitrarily strict.
The federal government could also prosecute growers or retailers licensed under the law, seize Washington's new marijuana revenues as proceeds of illicit drug deals, or withhold money from the state.
Nevertheless, I-502's sponsors, including former Seattle U.S. Attorney John McKay, Seattle City Attorney Pete Holmes and travel writer Rick Steves, say the measure has been drafted to withstand a federal challenge. Alison Holcomb, I-502's campaign manager, said at a recent debate that she would sit down with representatives of the federal government to explain how the measure could complement, not frustrate, federal efforts.
The initiative, promoted by New Approach Washington, would create a system of state-licensed growers, processors and stores, and would impose a 25 percent excise tax at each stage. Adults 21 and over could buy up to an ounce of dried marijuana; one pound of marijuana-infused product in solid form, such as brownies; or 72 ounces of marijuana-infused liquids. The cannabis would be subject to testing to establish its THC content.
Sales wouldn't begin immediately. The state Liquor Control Board would have a year to establish guidelines.
Holcomb, who concedes that marijuana is addictive for some, says I-502 would allow authorities to treat it as a public health issue, as has been effective in reducing tobacco use.
"We don't arrest adults for tobacco use to try to keep kids from using it," she said.
State revenue experts have estimated that I-502 could bring in as much as $1.9 billion in the next five years. Some of the money would be dedicated to the state general fund, while other portions would be devoted to health care, education and substance-abuse prevention.
If the initiative passes:
• Public use or display of marijuana would be barred.
• No marijuana facilities could be located near schools, day cares, parks or libraries.
• Employers would still be able to fire workers who test positive for pot.
• It would remain illegal to privately grow marijuana for recreational use, though medical patients could still grow their own or designate someone to grow it for them.
• It would be illegal to drive with more than 5 nanograms of THC, the active ingredient of cannabis, per milliliter of blood, if the driver is over 21; for those under 21, there would be a zero tolerance policy.
There would be no legal effect on medical marijuana dispensaries. However, it could have a political effect, Holcomb said. If recreational pot sales are allowed, prosecutors and investigators might take a more critical look at whether those operations are truly serving sick people.
Organized opposition comes from a group of medical marijuana patients who object to the DUI standard and say that if people can't grow their own, it's not really legalization at all.
Other public health and some law enforcement officials also oppose it, even if they haven't raised any money.
Mitch Barker, executive director of the Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs, said his organization is concerned about increasing availability of marijuana, especially for teens, and the difficulty of enforcing the DUI provisions.
The initiative's biggest financial contributor is Progressive Insurance founder Peter Lewis, who has given more than $1.5 million. Lewis also contributed to Washington's medical marijuana campaigns in 1997 and 1998.
Other donors include New York-based Drug Policy Action and the American Civil Liberties Union of Washington.
The former head of the FBI in Seattle and both candidates for King County sheriff have voiced support.
Voters like Terry Lavender, a retired 61-year-old from Woodinville who used pot decades ago, say they're intrigued by the idea of being able to walk into a state licensed store and buy marijuana.
"I enjoy a bit of scotch, I enjoy a beer, so maybe I would," Lavender says. "But that's not my motivation for doing this. My motivation is to stop locking people up."
It might not clear up more than a decade of confusion that resulted from the state's medical marijuana law, or reverse the proliferation of dispensaries. But supporters say passing Initiative 502 on Nov. 6 could make drug laws more reasonable, prevent thousands of arrests a year, and bring Washington hundreds of millions of dollars to help pay for schools, health care and basic government services.
It could also set up a big fight with the federal government.
Voters in Colorado and Oregon are considering similar measures. But based on polls, Washington's initiative might stand the best chance of passing. The measure has drawn slim organized opposition and gained support from some former federal law enforcement officers. The campaign has raised $4.1 million.
"There's a real disconnect with pot," said Brooke Thompson, a retired teacher from Bainbridge Island who found marijuana innocuous when she smoked it as a young adult. "It's been criminalized and criminals are making money on it. The state could be making money on it, and using the taxes to go into education. It seems like a win-win, and it would be nice for Washington to be the testing ground on this."
"Testing ground" is the right phrase. Washington could become a laboratory in easing the nation's drug war, which has cost more than $1 trillion and hundreds of thousands of lives in the past 40 years while doing little to dent demand.
Just as likely, it could bring on a protracted fight with the federal government. Marijuana remains illegal under U.S. law, and when state and federal laws conflict, federal law takes precedence. The Justice Department has kept mum, but if I-502 passes, many lawyers believe the DOJ is likely to try to block the law on the grounds that it frustrates the Controlled Substances Act.
That could leave just part of the initiative standing: decriminalization of up to an ounce of pot under state law, with no way to buy it legally, and a driving-under-the-influence standard that opponents consider arbitrarily strict.
The federal government could also prosecute growers or retailers licensed under the law, seize Washington's new marijuana revenues as proceeds of illicit drug deals, or withhold money from the state.
Nevertheless, I-502's sponsors, including former Seattle U.S. Attorney John McKay, Seattle City Attorney Pete Holmes and travel writer Rick Steves, say the measure has been drafted to withstand a federal challenge. Alison Holcomb, I-502's campaign manager, said at a recent debate that she would sit down with representatives of the federal government to explain how the measure could complement, not frustrate, federal efforts.
The initiative, promoted by New Approach Washington, would create a system of state-licensed growers, processors and stores, and would impose a 25 percent excise tax at each stage. Adults 21 and over could buy up to an ounce of dried marijuana; one pound of marijuana-infused product in solid form, such as brownies; or 72 ounces of marijuana-infused liquids. The cannabis would be subject to testing to establish its THC content.
Sales wouldn't begin immediately. The state Liquor Control Board would have a year to establish guidelines.
Holcomb, who concedes that marijuana is addictive for some, says I-502 would allow authorities to treat it as a public health issue, as has been effective in reducing tobacco use.
"We don't arrest adults for tobacco use to try to keep kids from using it," she said.
State revenue experts have estimated that I-502 could bring in as much as $1.9 billion in the next five years. Some of the money would be dedicated to the state general fund, while other portions would be devoted to health care, education and substance-abuse prevention.
If the initiative passes:
• Public use or display of marijuana would be barred.
• No marijuana facilities could be located near schools, day cares, parks or libraries.
• Employers would still be able to fire workers who test positive for pot.
• It would remain illegal to privately grow marijuana for recreational use, though medical patients could still grow their own or designate someone to grow it for them.
• It would be illegal to drive with more than 5 nanograms of THC, the active ingredient of cannabis, per milliliter of blood, if the driver is over 21; for those under 21, there would be a zero tolerance policy.
There would be no legal effect on medical marijuana dispensaries. However, it could have a political effect, Holcomb said. If recreational pot sales are allowed, prosecutors and investigators might take a more critical look at whether those operations are truly serving sick people.
Organized opposition comes from a group of medical marijuana patients who object to the DUI standard and say that if people can't grow their own, it's not really legalization at all.
Other public health and some law enforcement officials also oppose it, even if they haven't raised any money.
Mitch Barker, executive director of the Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs, said his organization is concerned about increasing availability of marijuana, especially for teens, and the difficulty of enforcing the DUI provisions.
The initiative's biggest financial contributor is Progressive Insurance founder Peter Lewis, who has given more than $1.5 million. Lewis also contributed to Washington's medical marijuana campaigns in 1997 and 1998.
Other donors include New York-based Drug Policy Action and the American Civil Liberties Union of Washington.
The former head of the FBI in Seattle and both candidates for King County sheriff have voiced support.
Voters like Terry Lavender, a retired 61-year-old from Woodinville who used pot decades ago, say they're intrigued by the idea of being able to walk into a state licensed store and buy marijuana.
"I enjoy a bit of scotch, I enjoy a beer, so maybe I would," Lavender says. "But that's not my motivation for doing this. My motivation is to stop locking people up."
It's still amazing to me that after all the research done on marijuana, some people really still have no clue about this plant. A all natural plant that's been smoked and used for medicine for thousands of years has been criminalized by the government with their propaganda. People will stuff their faces with fast food, drink alcohol and take tons of prescription pills which are all far worse for you than marijuana. Nobody has ever overdosed and died on cannabis. I have a big problem with this DUI issue, THC will stay in your system for up to 30 days, so how is that a good law?Â
It's time for the government to leave people alone and let adults decide what to put into their bodies.
Â
"The illegality of cannabis is outrageous, an impediment to full utilization of a drug which helps produce the serenity and insight, sensitivity and fellowship so desperately needed in this increasingly mad and dangerous world." - Carl Sagan
Progressive insurance a large donor. They must endorse smoking it and driving. Another thing, for those who cannot afford to buy their mj, will steal, burglarize homes, and victimize others to get it. Victims of these low level property crimes will be put to the wayside because its low priority.  Do they really think legalizing it, making money off it, will lower crime????? I don't care about people possessing mj, but if they are found with stolen property, tons of pawn tickets, and other evidence of crime that supports their habit, then hang em.Â
What are you talking about? You can buy it for $5 dollars a gram at some dispensaries, which has also dropped the street price down. Although, adding such a high tax will probably drive people out of the dispensaries and out to look for new sources. I know a lot of people who smoke and they don't go around stealing things and pawning things. Maybe if they were on meth or something.Â
1) Correction: The war on drugs is more than 40 years old. It really started in 1937 with the Marijuana tax act. Joseph Anslinger, who as a very staunch prohibitionist, found a new cause after alcohol was once again legal. So the war on drugs is 75 years old.
Â
2) At the time the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937 was passed, 37 states had already passed laws against its possession. States led the charge against marijuana. Now states are leading the charge to repeal those laws. So in many ways this is a State vs. Fed issue. States need more autonomy to pass their own laws without Federal interference. There is more grass roots democracy at the state level where people have more control. If the Fed fights this it will anger and unite both left and right leaning politicians, who will find common ground in opposing increasingly encroaching Federal powers over state rights.
Â
3) Marijuana has become such an integral part of our culture and so widely used that the current laws are unenforceable. To continue to criminalize the average citizen who uses it for either medical or recreational purposes is highly damaging to our faith and trust in an open democracy, and only serves to alienate and disenfranchise people, and weakens our democracy.
Â
The time has come for change, and we the people need to lead the charge in that change.
I think the limit for driving is so low because so few people high on pot get pulled over. If they didn't make it a low number then there would be very little to show the public how dangerous the potheads are, and very little revenue created by the new law.
They aren't that dangerous compared to the drunks and idiots texting on their phones. And they are taxing it 25%, how could the state not make revenue off that?Â
Even if this passes, the feds will have a problem with it. They won't come in and raid the state or anything of that nature, but what they will do is cut funds for certain programs and projects for the state. They'll make it financially impossible to keep it legal. For example, they could cut federal funding for highway construction and repair. This exact thing has been done before too... there was a time not so long ago when states set their own drinking age, some states had 18 or 19 year old drinking ages. The Feds told these states they have to raise their age to 21 if they want highway funding. Hawaii was the last to comply, being they don't need a lot of federal funding for highways. Theyll do the same in Washington... comply or no federal money for you. Just watch.
Personally, I have a family member who fried his brain at an early age, due to marijuana. He is now in his late 50's and never got LIFE 101. That wasn't the ONLY factor, but the major one. He is irresponsible, lives totally off of taxpayers money, thinks Medicaid is his insurance company, gets angry if he has to wait 15 minutes for free medical care, won't accept standard medical devices without complaining, then complains about how he never gets a break. And, don't any of you supporters of this bill, even try to dispute my claim.I know first hand how this drug CAN BE just as dangerous as other drugs and alcohol. Positively a NO vote from me.
Cannabis didn't make him a loser, he was a loser long before he smoked pot. Some people try to make cannabis a life destroying substance, its not. Look at all the people who have smoked cannabis regularly and still became very prosperous. Here's a couple, Brak Obama, Steve Jobs, Bill Clinton, Joe Rogan, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington. @Yadayada
 @Yadayada Marijuana doesn't "fry your brain". Medically, scientifically, that's just nonsense. Perhaps that family member was always a little "off", and was prone to being a deadbeat, but the reefer madness claim that marijuana fried his brain is laughable nonsense.
 @Yadayada Don't blame everybody who smokes pot for your brother being an idiot.
 @Yadayada And yet it being illegal he still managed to do all this these laws really helped.  I have never done pot didn't drink till I was 23,  I don't need to government to tell me what to do I am responsible for me. The same thing can happen to people who drink and people who are prescribed legal drugs and get hooked.  The money we spend to enforce these laws is insane and they do so little to help I have had trouble finding many people who say the cost is worth the result.  Prohibition was an utter failure and I'm sure the people of this country will look back and see the drug war as the same thing.
Take a lesson from Ron Paul.  If you don't want to be free you are in the wrong country.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EupRuxwuMLE Â
Get ready to pay up if I-502 passes. Yeah, it would be cool to be the first in the US, but by being the first we are going to be taking a huge financial hit in the way of legal fees fighting this clusterf**k. Let's do ourselves a favor, and let another State fight this costly battle for us. Either that, or give us a better initiative to vote on.Â
Â
Yes to legalization, No to I-502. There's a better way to do this.
I think the entire country needs to legalize it and tax the sh** out of iy.
After reading all the comments all I can think: Are you not the people that want this? How did you think it was going work? The biggest thing is federal government? What do they say? We are UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. can anyone for the weed revolution tell me why its so UNITED ? Â Â
âFreedom makes a huge requirement of every human being. With freedom comes responsibility. For the person who is unwilling to grow up, the person who does not want to carry his own weight, this is a frightening prospect.â â Eleanor Roosevelt.
This comment has been deleted
@Femme Fatale Show us the studies (real ones!) that show marijuana is addictive.Â
This comment has been deleted
 @Femme Fatale You are clearly very ignorant on this subject. You "heard" that it makes people stupid and paranoid? Oh please, it's not a big deal. I know  teachers and even church goers that smoke. It's a natural pain killer that has been used forever and the only reason you believe that nonsense is because you don't know your facts. Did you know that marijuana might cause new cell growth in the brain? Professor Xia Zhang is someone you should look up and read his research.Â
Only retards would vote ridiculous legislation into place that places a per se DUI on such a low and arbitrary number. 5 NANOGRAMS per milliliter of blood for 21 and older, and 0 NANOGRAMS under 21. Think about that second one for a minute. Someone under 21 could get a DUI for having ANY MEASURABLE AMOUNT OF THC IN THEIR BLOOD! This means they could have smoked FIVE DAYS AGO and STILL GET A DUI!!!!! It's complete garbage legislation.
@slappywag You're right and I'm going to agree with you. Marijuana has one of the longerst half lives of any drug out there. You might not be high, but the THC stays in your body for up to 30 days. You could have smoked a joint a week ago, and while no longer feeling the effects, you might still test positive. They're going to have to find a way to test for "intoxication" rather than blood levels of the substance.
 @slappywag 1. It is already illegal to smoke and drive. You can get a DUI from getting high and driving.
Â
2. You shouldn't be smoking and driving.
Â
I'm fine with 5 nanograms. If you want to smoke, drink, or do lines of coke, call a cab, and stay off of my taxpayer funded roadways.
@PacificNWRunner @slappywag That's all well & good, but when you can test well over 5ng & you haven't smoked in a week (in other words, you are not high by any stretch of the imagination!), there is a problem.
@slappywag (I almost called you "skippy"...)  Hey, what do you think about our 0.08 Alcohol Concentration Limit for those who are under 21?Â
i'm sure he'll answer, "it's too low! it's nonsense!"
This comment has been deleted
@Femme Fatale @slappywag Did you actually read the initiative? People over 21 have a 5ng THC limit, people UNDER 21 have a zero THC limit. .
as a non-user, i really don't care whether it becomes legal or not. but when it does, i'll have to drive extra-defensively - to protect myself and my gf from not only the DWI drivers but also the DUI drivers w/ marijuana breaths... at that time, i'll upgrade my mid-size SUV to a mega-size... hey, i might install several more airbags too....
@CIAassassin RIGHT.....because NO ONE is driving stoned now.  ROFL
 @CIAassassin A 2002 review of seven separate studies involving 7,934 drivers reported, âCrash culpability studies have failed to demonstrate that drivers with cannabinoids in the blood are significantly more likely than drug-free drivers to be culpable in road crashes.â This result is likely because subject under the influence of marijuana are aware of their impairment and compensate for it accordingly, such as by slowing down and by focusing their attention when they know a response will be required. This reaction is just the opposite of that exhibited by drivers under the influence of alcohol, who tend to drive in a more risky manner proportional to their intoxication.
 @CommutingGuy  @CIAassassin ""aware of their impairment""   So the study itself admits that the drivers are impaired to some degree......then you shouldn't be driving. Call a cab, and stay off of my roadways.Â
Â
Drink, smoke, do lines of coke, I don't care, call a cab.
communtingguy, so what you're saying is i shouldn't drive extra-defensively even if tons of DUI drivers behind their wheels are on the road? and all i have to worry about is DWI drivers... okay, pal... you go ahead with that study. i go ahead with my safe habit.
 @CIAassassin ...and they say cannabis makes you paranoid...
anyway, i can't understand why the 'druggy homer simpson' is so fired up and insulting commentors here.  maybe, once again, it might be because i'm and have been a non-user in my life? Â
Â
but, at any point, i never said i was for or against Initiative 502. as far as our current economical, financial, budget, and spending situation of WA, i think this can be a good move.
Â
my remark of protecting myself and my gf on the road??? ALMOST having been dangerously broadsided several times in downtown seattle alone at night by suspected DWI / DUI drivers running stop lights at high speed, i am absolutely sure that's a good idea. had i not been paying extra attention or using quick reflex at those times, i would have been a dead man....Â
You clearly know nothing about THC or its effects, so why not let the adults have a conversation now. @CIAassassin
 @slappywag  @CIAassassin NHTSA released a study a few years ago about the effects of smoking marijuana and driving. News flash: People get popped for DUI for smoking and driving right now.....no legislation needed. Drive High? Get Nailed. Stay off of my roadways.
yeah, you look and talk like an adult, buddy... your rudeness only means one thing ---> you have no confidence in your statement. basically, you don't know what you're saying.
hang on funk monkey must of just smoked a hooter cause hes a blabbering
 @greengrower cute... The fact that you're puffin' must mean you have a mmj card... well... this shouldn't concern you then. I also surmise because you have the moniker greengrower you're probably the kind that does back door sales for profit.. good on you. Don't read my posts and you won't hear my lips a flappin'... does that help?
Washington state will be the first state since prohibition to legalize and tax this beneficial commodity,there's no evidence that supports that legalization will lead to increased arrests,law enforcement acknowledges this, as some of their most prominent voices have backed this initiative...
Â
The real proponents of this is organized crime rooted all over the world..plain and simple
Â
Â
Â
Â
Â
Â
Prgress is so slow... Of course pot has to be legal, you should be allowed to grow your own, as you can make your own wine or beer. For selling it, it has to be controlled to protect the consumer (again, as any food or drink). Prohibition doesn't work, it is a horrible failure just as alcohol prohibition was.
Its still against federal law, and federal law supersides anything the state does.
 @JohnM Yes, and that makes the federal government responsible for all enforcement of that law if this initiative passes. How much of your already over-taxed income are you willing to sacrifice to fight that unnecessary, losing battle? That type of wastefulness doesn't come cheap.
The real question is "Will Olympia honor the vote if legalization passes?". A few years ago our state government stated they would enact legalization only when the federal government legalizes it.
I consider Mary-J to be the same as booze. Both are dangerous when driving. I do not partake in either and I believe that if someone is stoned when they crash, they get the same consequences as a DUI. Other than this, I think it will be a great boost for our economy. I am not thinking of just the taxes but of all the business the fast food places will get when these guys get the munchies!!
People on THC are actually safer drivers. There is proof backed by government studies. Look it up before you say something else stupid. @Just a dude
 @slappywag  @Just a dude Actually NHTSA says that marijuana impairs drivers. Wrong again.
Â
Stay off of my roadways. People get popped for DUI for smoking and driving every year. Don't do it.
 @Just a dude Taco time.... ummm... yummy...
 @Funky-Munky  @Just a dude grab me a Mexi-bowl
Vote no folks.5 nanograms will be in your system a long time after you have smoked and or ate.So please vote No until they can come up with a real test of some sort.
Thumbs up to you. @F4I
 @F4I Everyone smokes everyday already and takes that very chance...... Don't drive stoned.... smell like a skunk.... and johnny law will leave you alone... Oh, yes don't have it where you can reach it in the car... kinda like an open container... (just a thought)