Tomorrow Is Pot Legalization Day in Washington

Tomorrow marijuana legalization begins to take effect in Washington. Adults 21 or older will be allowed to possess up to an ounce for personal use and consume it privately, although they will still have to obtain it from illegal sources. Unlike Colorado's Amendment 64, I-502 does not permit home cultivation, and the Washington State Liquor Control Board has until next December to adopt regulations for marijuana farms and stores. The Drug Policy Alliance comments:

There were more than 241,000 arrests for marijuana possession in Washington State over the past 25 years at a cost to the state of over $300,000,000. In 2010 alone there were 11,000 arrests for marijuana possession.  A single arrest for possession costs from $1000 to $2000 and creates a permanent criminal record that can severely limit an individual’s ability to obtain housing, schooling, employment, and credit.  Tomorrow this waste of taxpayer dollars—and human potential—comes to an end.

Also taking effect tomorrow: Washington's controversial new standard for driving under the influence of marijuana, which makes it a crime to operate a motor vehicle with a THC concentration of five or more nanograms per milliliter of blood. In the next few months we should start to get a sense of whether this per se rule is unfairly penalizing unimpaired marijuana users and whether they are worse off than they were with the old standard, which required evidence of impairment for an arrest and evidence of consumption for a conviction. The new law requires reasonable suspicion of impairment before a driver's blood can be drawn for a test.

In Colorado, meanwhile, legalization of possession (also up to an ounce) and home cultivation (up to six plants) will take effect sometime during the next month, depending on when Gov. John Hickenlooper officially proclaims the results of the Amendment 64 vote, but definitely by January 5. The state Department of Revenue has until next July to write regulations for commercial cultivation and distribution.

Looking ahead to that prospect, Boulder City Attorney Tom Carr worries that the state might start licensing pot stores before his city has its own regulations in place. As a precaution, he suggests the city ban such businesses, as Amendment 64 allows. Last night the Boulder City Council rejected that suggestion (for now, at least). Councilwoman Lisa Morzel explained that "invoking a ban would be so nondemocratic and would provoke the wrath of the public to such an extent that it would not be a good idea politically."

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Hugh Akston||

    I was quite surprised to hear the bureaucrats in Boulder, of all places, talking seriously about preemptively banning pot shops. Douglas County? Sure. But not Boulder.

    I guess this next year is really going to test whether lefties prefer sucking a joint or blowing federal government dick.

  • Coeus||

    I guess this next year is really going to test whether lefties prefer sucking a joint or blowing federal government dick.

    What test? You already know which one they're gonna pick.

  • ||

    I was quite surprised to hear the bureaucrats in Boulder, of all places, talking seriously about preemptively banning pot shops.

    It was one bureaucrat, the district attorney. If he was appointed rather than elected, he would not be concerned about losing his job over this suggestion.

  • Pound. Head. On. Desk.||

    Damn. And here I was planning my wardrobe for tomorrow thinking it was going to be Naked Day.

  • Death Rock and Skull||

    If offenses will remain on one's record, this is not acceptable.

  • Pound. Head. On. Desk.||

    Of course they will. And abstaining from pot will be a condition of their parole.

  • T||

    Well, we'll see if Dunphy's predictions come true. Me? I give it very few months before the federal law enforcement banhammer comes down on WA for great victory.

    I seriously hope I'm wrong and it's all puppies and rainbows like Dunphy thinks it'll be. But I'm confident in mofos getting dragged through teh federal wringer before it's all said and done.

  • nicole||

    I actually heard a story about this on Morning Edition this morning, where they were talking about the DUI part of the law. They had some lawyer guy talking about how he was telling his clients on medical MJ not to get behind the wheel anymore no matter what, basically. But then they talked to some high-level cop who was like "yeah, we really don't give a fuck, if you're driving erratically we're going to pull you over and if you're not we're not."

    And yet somehow...well...I mean they have to get your three felonies a day in somehow, don't they?

  • ||

    NOBODY GIVES A SHIT ABOUT YOUR STUPID STORIES NICOLE!!!

    JESUS CHRIST JUST SHUT UP ALREADY!

    I haven't yelled at anyone all day. Thank you for providing me the opportunity.

  • nicole||

    Anytime

  • ||

    Don't you yell at her! She's a girl, she can't defend herself!

  • nicole||

    If I want to be abused, that's my own choice!

  • mr simple||

    I came here for an argument.

  • ||

    Shut your festering gob, you tit! Your type really makes me puke, you vacuous, coffee-nosed, malodorous pervert!

  • General Butt Naked||

    Look, I CAME HERE FOR AN ARGUMENT, I'm not going to just stand...!!

  • ||

    I told you once.

  • nicole||

    You know what makes me puke? The error in your Monty Python–quoting ways. Don't you even know what a toff is?

  • ||

    Shit, how did that happen? Still, coffee-nosed is an insult! Right?

  • nicole||

    Well, it doesn't sound like a compliment.

  • ||

    No matter what you say, though, I'm not going to let you wear that high-waisted skirt, and I hope you'd do the same for me. Sometimes I get stupid.

  • ||

    What the fuck is a "high-waisted skirt"?

    You uneducated catamite, I have to go bath in bleach now to scour the residue that accumulates anytime I'm forced to interact with you.

    Forced, I say.

  • nicole||

    I will never, ever let you wear a skirt with a non-approved print. And believe me, those bows were non-approved.

    As you see, Jim cannot help you here.

  • ||

    That's assuming Jim would be willing to help him anywhere, even if Jim were capable of assistance, and not a capering baffoon, which he is.

  • General Butt Naked||

    Wear the skirt, Epi is just jealous that he can't wear one because of his giant F.U.P.A.

  • ||

    I can wear one! How dare you call me fat! I go to the gym and work out all the time! But it doesn't do anything!

    (runs off sobbing)

  • ||

    As you see, Jim cannot help you here.

    I'm starting to see that.

    (looks askance at JJ)

  • nicole||

    Jim is the guy on the right, right? I can see the guy on the right as a capering buffoon.

  • ||

    I have no idea what's been going on during this entire conversation.

  • nicole||

    I can help with that. To an extent.

  • ||

    JJ's more of a simpering buffoon than a capering one, I'd say, but close enough.

  • ||

    I wish I hadn't looked at that. Honestly I was having more fun concocting a background for this exchange in my head, which involved naked women, dragons, prehensile and sentient penis-creatures, and absolutely NO BOOK REVIEWS BECAUSE THAT IS GAY.

  • nicole||

    So you're saying you're still trying to pick a fight then?

  • ||

    No, I'm saying you don't ever review my favorite genre of literature, centaur porn/romance novels.

  • Jesus H. Christ||

    I don't know which is worse, centaurs or NASCAR.

    Yeah, NASCAR is worse.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    She was a mousy, recently divorced stay-at-home mom.

    He was the first centaur to drive in NASCAR.

    Watch the sparks fly in: HOLY SHIT! A CENTAUR IS DRIVING A CAR!

  • ||

    The law requires reasonable suspicion of impairment to draw blood for the test. If you don't act high, they won't have a legal case for checking your blood levels.

  • General Butt Naked||

    I'm most concerned that the power junkies in Washington DeeCee are gonna try some bullshit like they did with the traffic and DUI laws, i.e. withholding federal funds until they get whatever oppressive measures their loins fervently desire.

  • deified||

    You killed my erection. I hope you're proud of yourself.

  • Death Rock and Skull||

    Story: I once was so high, that I tried squirting Visine in my eyes, but I forgot to take off the cap and struggled to squeeze the bottle for a drawn out period. And everyone at the confirmation saw it.

  • Pi Guy||

    I've done that and was surely witnessed doing it.

  • ||

    Dude, that's comedy genius. Just tell them that you did it on purpose. For the lulz.

  • nicole||

    I'm now getting ads for eyedrops.

  • ||

    Was it your confirmation? I sure wish I was at mine.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    The new law requires reasonable suspicion of impairment before a driver's blood can be drawn for a test.

    We have all seen what an obstacle that presents.

    "The car REEKED of the weed! I feared for the safety of myself and other drivers on the road."

  • Hugh Akston||

    "I emptied three magazines into the car and then called for backup. The SWAT team laid down suppressive fire for 45 minutes before the police drone could subdue the suspect with a Griffin missile."

  • Pi Guy||

    We have all seen what an obstacle that presents.

    Cop: "He was too high to even stand so I didn't feel it was safe to have him attempt a sobriety test."

  • Pound. Head. On. Desk.||

    A neighborhood kid and his friends were sitting for the better part of an hour in his car on the road maybe a thousand feet from his driveway with the engine idling and his foot on the brake. I went to make sure they were OK. Pot reek was evident at a distance, and they were having a circular conversation about how long it was taking them to get home.

  • General Butt Naked||

    They were arguing about circles?

    ....whoa man, that's deep

  • Pi Guy||

    Mmmm... Cheetos

  • sticks||

    I prefer jamon and manchego when stoned. Actually I prefer them all the time.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    "invoking a ban would be so nondemocratic and would provoke the wrath of the public to such an extent that it would not be a good idea politically."

    Those crazy dope fiends might vote us out of office! We cannot accept that risk.

  • mr simple||

    I can't decide if it's good that she actually admits that's all she cares about. I mean, at least she's not some ideologue hell bent on pushing her agenda regardless of public opinion.

  • ||

    She may be an idealogue looking for political cover to do what she wanted to do anyway -- she gets props from those who smoke weed for shooting down this idea, but gets to go door to door telling the conservatives she meets how dammit, she just couldn't do it because of all those OTHER voters.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Not so fast, hippies!

    Jenny Durkan, the U.S. Attorney for Western Washington, sent out a statement Wednesday that regardless of legalization measures in Washington and Colorado, the federal ban on marijuana remains unchanged. But the statement did not come with any legal action by the U.S. Department of Justice to block the new law from taking effect on Thursday.

    The statement:

    The Department of Justice is reviewing the legalization initiatives recently passed in Colorado and Washington state. The Department’s responsibility to enforce the Controlled Substances Act remains unchanged. Neither States nor the Executive branch can nullify a statute passed by Congress. In enacting the Controlled Substances Act, Congress determined that marijuana is a Schedule I controlled substance.

    Regardless of any changes in state law, including the change that will go into effect on December 6th in Washington state, growing, selling or possessing any amount of marijuana remains illegal under federal law. Members of the public are also advised to remember that it remains against federal law to bring any amount of marijuana onto federal property, including all federal buildings, national parks and forests, military installations, and courthouses.

    This does not sound like quiet acquiescence.

  • deified||

    Jenny Durkan is a foolish shit-stain. Out, damned spot!

  • ||

    http://spdblotter.seattle.gov/.....n-seattle/

    Marijwhatnow? A Guide to Legal Marijuana Use In Seattle

    Will police officers be able to smoke marijuana?
    As of right now, no. This is still a very complicated issue.

  • Coeus||

    Interesting. An actual real-world example of double standards against an officer. It's like finding a unicorn. I predict that Dunphy will bring this up at every single possible opportunity.

  • ||

    Not really a double standard. It's legal to drink alcohol, yet you can still be fired at pretty much any job for showing up with alcohol on your breath.

  • waaminn||

    How do they know that man.
    www.IP-Hiding.tk

  • ||

    pro-drug warriors can be almost as bad at lying as anti-drug warriors... case in point this entire paragraph:There were more than 241,000 arrests for marijuana possession in Washington State over the past 25 years at a cost to the state of over $300,000,000. In 2010 alone there were 11,000 arrests for marijuana possession. A single arrest for possession costs from $1000 to $2000 and creates a permanent criminal record that can severely limit an individual’s ability to obtain housing, schooling, employment, and credit. Tomorrow this waste of taxpayer dollars—and human potential—comes to an end.

    first of all, most "arrests" are criminal cites, not handcuffing and booking. second of all, many if not most arrests do NOT create a "permananent criminal record" since the most common penalty includes a continue w/.o a finding clause. iow, stay out of trouble for a year and it's WIPED from your record and you do not have to report it as a a conviction to any employer. it's like an expungment.

    the war on MJ is and has been a waste, but the consequences in WA state, and especially king / pierce/ and sno counties are far less severe than they sound - likely charge, IF the person is charged, is a 50-100 dollar fine and a wipe from the record after a year. hardly a horrible burden for the average civilian. which is why most people around here who smoke pot don't fear the police.

  • General Butt Naked||

    Standard in my state IS to get arrested, IS to get 6 months probation, IS to have a record, IS to have a lifetime ban on getting a LTCF...

    Sorry dude, the world ain't Snohomish county. Out here people are still getting fucked for this bullshit.

  • deified||

    What state?

  • General Butt Naked||

    PA

    Washington, where dunphy is from, has very lenient view towards pot, other states aren't the same. He takes his experiences and extrapolates general statements to apply to all.

    You can go on NORML's website and view the laws state by state.

  • sohbet||

    super blogs thanks admins
    sohbet
    sohbet odaları

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement