Washington State Marijuana Legalization Push Takes "New Approach"

A group in Seattle kicked off a campaign on Wednesday to legalize marijuana for recreational use in 

Washington state, where it is already legal for medical purposes. The New Approach Washington initiative boasts several high-profile backers including former United States Attorney John McKay, travel show host Rick Steves, Seattle City Attorney Pete Holmes, and former president of the Washington State Bar Association Salvador Mungia.

With five years' experience enforcing federal drug laws, McKay says:

"Prohibition is a dumb policy…Whether you are a Democrat or a Republican, in law enforcement or a medical provider, you look at the data and you come to the same conclusion: The war on drugs has failed."

The initiative has already gathered 100,000 of the 241,153 signatures required to win a slot on the November ballot. It would legalize and regulate the sale of marijuana through state-licensed dispensaries, applying almost the same laws regulating alcohol. Home growing and sale between private individuals would remain illegal. Supporters estimate that the initiative would bring in $215 million in state revenues per year which are already earmarked within the initiative for various state health and drug education programs.

This latest push in Washington comes just a couple months after Gov. Chris Gregoire (D) bowed to federal pressure, vetoing legislation which would have clarified the rules for growing and dispensing medical marijuana. Despite the failure of Prop. 19 in California, supporters of legalization still have reason to be hopeful. At least two 2010 polls of Washington state residents found that over 50 percent think legalization is a good idea—which means turning the question over to the voters might also be a good idea.

Comments

[Zuo]

Rick Steves. Lol.

[Zuo]

Good on 'im though. I just looked him on wiki and his views on "civilians" are startlingly fringe... but not inaccurate.

[Pro Libertate]

That isn't even a slight surprise. He's a stoner and always has been.

[sevo]

There was a program on History channel last night on legalization, and actually a pretty good one.
But they had to be "fair", so they brought on a couple of talking heads who disagreed.
I swear the first one defended pot prohibition since alcohol prohibition was such a good idea!
I turned the TV off rather than throw a shoe at it.

[Jim]

I watched that, but was disappointed that the prohibition types were all "professionals" and "suits", whose opinions people tend to take more seriously than the Hal Sparks and Joe Rogans of the world, who were stumping for legalization.

[Cabeza de Vaca]

I watched that as well. I liked that they had Jeffrey Miron on for the legalization side.

[JoergeMon]

Makes a lot of sese when you think about it. Wow.

http://www.real-privacy.no.tc

[Hugh Akston]

More people whose careers can no longer be harmed by their advocacy of legalization advocate legalization. Didn't we add this as a drinking game rule?

Also, medical MJ laws acting as a wedge for recreational MJ legalization, in Washington no less.

Where's Paul when you need him?

[deified]

FUCK FUCK FUCK.

? "Sensible Washington" (full legalization) only has 56,000 signatures.

? "New Approach Washington" (State-run liquor store approach) only has 100,000.

? They both need over 241,000 valid signatures by July 8th.

? People may be confused about whether they have already signed one petition or another.

? It's very likely that neither will get onto the ballot for 2011.

Did I mention.......fuck?

[Mailman]

You've got the facts wrong: only Sensible Washington needs 241,000 valid signatures by July 8th because only they are trying to get an initiative on this November's ballot. New Approach Washington is going a different approach that is aimed at 2012. See Seattle Times's endorsement:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.c.....rmid=op_ed

[deified]

Wow, that was a "Reading Comprehension FAIL" on my part.

Nevertheless, it's good news.

So the true fact is that "New Approach Washington" (the liquor store proposal) currently has 100,000 signatures and only needs 241,000 by Dec. 31st.

GREAT NEWS!

[Episiarch]

Home growing and sale between private individuals would remain illegal.

Of. Fucking. Course. The state wants all the revenue. Fuck, if you can't grow your own, is it even really "legal"? If you can't grow your fucking own, then that means they will still break down the doors and raid people who do. Basically, this proposal will make it so that everyone has a "prescription" for medical MJ and you have to go to the state pharmacy to get it.

What a fucking god-awful way to legalize. The government grows all the pot? How bad will that suck?

[Mnemone Jones]

Once it's legal and all socially accepted and so forth, you can work on the equivalent of home brewer's rights to your heart's content; craft brewers used to be basically illegal, and now look at our embarrassment of riches. If this is how it has to start (and I'm betting it is), then that's the way it will be.

Besides, if the weed they produce really is crappy, people will just go back to the illegal homegrown stuff and the state won't get a cut anyway.

[Zuo]

Yeah, its fucking bullshit. But I'd imagine a homebrewing state like WA would get it straightened it out within a few years. Wouldn't they? Wouldn't they???

[Episiarch]

My guess is that this part of the proposal is a complete and total sop to the state: "you'll get all the moniez, yo". And I agree that it would probably be changed pretty fast. But still, it's an incredibly shitty aspect to the proposal. Not selling is bad enough, but not growing?

[Tulpa]

The problem is, the longer the state monopoly goes on the harder it will be to get rid of. The PA liquor debacle is evidence of that -- only a tiny percentage of Pennsylvanians have any problem with alcohol being legal and easily available to adults.

[Crawford]

Fuck it, this law isn't exactly what I want it to be. I want perfection or nothing at all. ((Runs to bedroom, slams the door, turns up the stereo, and starts yelling "I HATE THE WORLD, I HATE THE WORLD, I HATE THE WORLD!!!!))

[Episiarch]

Don't be a moron. Did I say that nothing was better than this?

Reading comprehension is hard.

[Joshua Corning]

I often pride myself at my ability to start a fight over nothing in the hit and run comments...

But sometimes i am awed at Epi's pure skill in this matter...the most frustrating part is I don't even think he is trying.

[Tulpa]

In this case at least Epi's skill is making a bold statement and then trying to walk it back in the face of resistance, while insulting anyone who criticized his original statement for "poor reading comprehension".

But Neu Mejican is still the master of this tactic, though.

[Joshua Corning]

But Neu Mejican is still the master of this tactic

True but Epi as a min-anarchist is fairly none controversial in his views...at least on hit and run.

New Mex takes a fairly statist left wing stances on subjects. He can just state his opinion and get everyone riled up. Epi on the other hand can piss people off who agree with him.

I tried to segregate individual like new Mex or say Shrike by stating "start a fight over nothing"

In general I see a fight of leftist political views vs libertarian views as a fight over "something" not nothing....at least in the context of discussions on this blog.

[Tulpa]

Ahem.

Fuck, if you can't grow your own, is it even really "legal"?

[Robert]

It's bad but not for the reason you give. It's foolish to have it as a state licensed, private business as long as the federal prohibition is taken seriously, for this would be trivially easy for the feds to shut down. Instead, make it an actual state business operated by the police -- because it's legal under federal law for the cops to grow & sell pot -- and/or legalize home grown -- because the feds would not be interested in personal use amounts.

[Doc S.]

Isn't legalizing it and taxing the hell out of it still a way better policy than the current one??
baby steps are still steps.

[Episiarch]

Again, where did I say nothing was better than this? I said it was a shitty plan as plans go.

[Doc S.]

You didn't, but you also didn't say that you were for the idea, so i didn't want to infer either direction. I simply asked for clarification.

I hate bad policy just as much as the next person, but unfortunately i've come to be in favor of "less bad" policy

[Tulpa]

You implied it.

[Duncan20903]

A sharp stick in the eye would be better public policy than the current lunacy which we're being forced to endure.

[Phlogistan]

Episiarch, well if your worried bout the quality of the final product. Dont Worry! I can assure you that that there are hordes of skilled undervalued workers with dazzling work ethics ready step in.

Many of these workers have a fundamental aversion to producing less then the best.

Give me just 3 growing cycles and that gubment swag will sparkle like diamonds!

[dunphy]

IN-CRE-MENT-A-LISM. this is a less "radical" approach than the one that has been failing, and is still a lot better than it remaining ipso facto criminal (apart from medical mj). nobody believes this is perfect, but it's a damn sight better than what we got (WA LEO speaking here)

[Anon]

You've got that right. I've always thought sensible's approach on two things was harmful to passage possibility. #1 - making it legal for 18+ instead of 21+. Sure I agree it should be available to 18+ but isnt the argument always "come on, just treat it like alcohol"? Well then we should mirror alcohol standards if we want it to be treated as such. #2 - doesn't address drugged driving. This is a serious and legitimate concern. The risk of driving high (or semi high), how dangerous is that... Its Debatable. Point is though that LE will NOT budge on the legalization issue until DUI is addressed. So let's address that and meet in the middle. Yes i like sensible's bill better but poltiics isnt always perfect; its a mix of what the people want and what the opposition will agree upon. Get it done!

[Don McAdams]

I agree, and to those who feel that "fixing it later," is a viable option, I have to disagree. Just look at the Internal Revenue Act. Collecting income taxes was supposed to be temporary, yet that policy remains. Once they get their hands in our pockets, it's not easy to get'em out...

[Pip]

"Home growing and sale between private individuals would remain illegal."

Fuck. This.

[Anti-Pot SWAT door-smashers.]

They have to keep something for us to do.

[Barry D]

Since no dogs are allowed in the state liquor stores, you can't shoot them there.

[Pinkerton Man]

I hear their are powerful unions in Washington State. We at Pinkerton are looking into the situation there.

[Duncan20903]

My idea is to force cops to work 10 to 20 hours of overtime each week, and assign them to sit in local donut shops so we can be certain that there's no illegal donuts being distributed to the cheee-el-drens. Beyond that, just let attrition take care of the RIF.

Win-win-win. How the heck could anyone be against saving our cheee-el-drens lives from the scourge of poison donuts? What can we do stop the loss of yet another generation because we were scared to do the right thing?

[dunphy]

here in seattle, we would prefer being forced to work overtime in upscale stores that sell muffins and scones. donuts are SO pedestrian. gotta keep up the image of the upscale govt. teat sucker.

note also that WA does not have dunkin donuts. 🙁

[curiousgeorge]

You have a Krispy Kreme in Issaquah, quite yer complainin'

[CrB]

Krispy Kreme is all over the place up here in Seattle. I would prefer a Dunkin Donuts, personally. Alas, I always want what I can't have.

[dunphy]

i'm an east coaster at heart. i'll always be a dunkin donuts fan

[Duncan20903]

dunphy, I was alluding to police preference in my previous post, not the population as a whole.

[dunphy]

it's called pragmatism and incrementalism. it also helps make the initiative more attractive to more people since it is seen as being a big boon to tax revenue which our state could use.

incrementalism are the path to true legalization. stomping yer foot out of purity indignation does nothing to advance the cause.

iow, pouting on the internet doesn't help anything. sorry, pumpkin.

but smooches anyway, pip

[Larry France]

State dispensaries of alcohol have worked out so well for the citizens.

Two steps forward, but one step back. Better than no progress, but still.

[reason readin female]

There's a big push in WA to privatize all or most liquor sales. Once that is done, those state run liquor stores have to sell something....might as well be pot!

[deified]

Ooh, a lady!

[tries to remember what to do]

[sevo]

"There's a big push in WA to privatize all or most liquor sales. Once that is done, those state run liquor stores have to sell something....might as well be pot!"

Or they could just, you know, close their doors, go out of business and remove thousands from the gov't payroll.

[Episiarch]

No, they don't have to sell something. That's why we're trying to get rid of them.

However, I think the state government is also thinking that we're going to have that ballot initiative again, and at some point, it will succeed, and then they really will want to be able to put something in those stores to keep the liquor store parasites on the till; and it might as well be weed.

[Mnemone Jones]

That is more foresight than is normally attributable to government at any level.

[reason readin female]

Yea, the idea that those unionized government workers need to sell something was more tongue in cheek than what I thought is their working plan.
I don't think there will be another initiative if SB 5942 passes.
http://blog.seattlepi.com/seat.....ate-panel/
And I agree...if it does pass, those government workers might as well sell weed!

[Sean]

Those ballot measures were defeated last election. Is there a new push I am unaware of?

[reason readin female]

There's a bill making its way through the legislature.
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinf.....&year=2011

It actually only partially privatizes liquor sales...but it's a good start!

[dunphy]

i;'m against them on principle, but they work reasonably well here in WA. otoh, they are expensive as fuck. but they aren't exactly the DOL (god forbid) and i give them props for being consistent in checking ID's vs. numerous package stores i have busted. i worked a # of liquor stings of businesses selling to underages when i was street crimes. we never caught a state liquor store but caught dozens of package stores (the latter can sell beer but not hard liquor)

[Hard On For Liberty]

So what? Kids like booze. Mind your own fucking business.

[Au H20]

So, these dispensaries would be run like the liquor stores in Pennsylvania?

Actually, I like it, for this one reason: Now, the Feds will have to arrest state employees, and this will quickly become a massive pissing contest between the DEA and the local cops (if there's one thing I've learned from cop shows, it's that every local outfit hates the feds). Hell, they may even arrest DEA agents, and they are more likely to if it's a fellow state employee.

Also, the administration is cool with Medical MJ, but I have a funny feeling we're going to get some serious hemming and hawing from Barack Obama soon.

[dunphy]

we don't "hate" them as much as look at them usually as pretty foolish and naive. i refer to the FBI as the "Fan Belt Inspectors" or "Famous But Incompetent".

otoh, props for catching that piece of shit whitey bulger!

[sloopyinca]

The FBI could have caught Whitey Bulger any time they wanted to. All they had to do was ask HR where his checks were getting mailed to.

[mr lizard]

They're only betting on $215 million? They better add a zero on the end of that.

[Barry D]

Yeah, Washington is right next to a few other states...

[Mnemone Jones]

Nah, if Washington does go through with it (and the fed doesn't descend upon them and lay waste like one of the many assorted gods of thunder), there will be the fastest race ever between the neighbors to jump on the legalize and tax bandwagon.

[Sean]

There is only one god of thunder that counts.

[Mnemone Jones]

Xolotl!

[Barry D]

Home growing would remain illegal?

That's asinine.

If they want regulated sales and tax revenue, I can see that, but I don't see any justification for keeping someone from having plants for personal use.

[Mnemone Jones]

If they want regulated sales and tax revenue, I can see that, but I don't see any justification for keeping someone from having plants for personal use.

The justification is that they want regulated sales and tax revenue.

[dunphy]

the justification is they want a measure that can PASS. and people are more comfortable with at least some measure of state control over outright legalization for growing, etc. it's called pragmatism vs. "purity". iow, let's try something that has a greater chance of working and by working i mean GETTING passed

[Mnemone Jones]

Yes, I agree, I was just being a bit cheeky. As you can see from my comments earlier in the thread, I think that incremental reforms greased by the almighty dollar going into the public pocket is ultimately what will make the ratchet go the right way.

[dunphy]

fair enuf. fwiw, since WA already heavily taxes the other legal recreational drug *(alcohol), MJ should "join the party"

[Almanian]

Mo' money, mo' money, mo' money...

[Tman]

So you'd be able to smoke a giant state approved doobie at the lake in Washington and instead of getting arrested for that you will get fined for not wearing your life jacket.

Even Orwell would be scratching his head over this one.

[Joshua Corning]

the lake in Washington

Contrary to Michigan propaganda we Washingtonians have more then one lake.

Lake Union at the very least can be considered at least 50% of a lake and Lake Washington is nearly the size of full lake.

We have 1.2 lakes at the very least...even more if you measure above the ordinary high water mark.

[Tman]

I was referring to this post from the other day-

http://reason.com/blog/2011/06.....ut-life-ve

[Joshua Corning]

The irony is the same voters in King county will be the ones who decide if pot is legal or not.

I don't think there has been a state wide election in Washington state in the past 20 years that was not decided by King county.

They have a huge population compared to the other counties and they track heavily to the left.

[dunphy]

they do, but keep in mind King County , if you exclude Seattle city limits, tracks right.

iirc, Seattle is about 550k population, and the entire county is about 1.7 mill.

The city is overwhelmingly democrat, but the rest of the county is repub (although not to the extent that seattle is dem)

[dunphy]

you most likely would not get (custodially) arrested for smoking a doobie. at worst, most likely a criminal cite. many agencies have officers that routinely give verbal warnings for small quantities of mj. seattle does this, as does my agency. depends on the officer of course

[Almanian]

Pot AND Shrooms - ONLY AT REASON.COM!

You guys are making me REALLY hungry.

[Larry]

If more people are educated and understand the values of freedom and liberty they will legalize everything that is inflated in value due to the legality of owning it. Only because it is not legal is the value so much. Legalize and the value drops and people that use will quit sending so much south of the borders

[Spur]

All that is needed from the stand point of strategies and tactics is one state to pass a ballot initiative that is viewed as marijuana legalization regardless of how imperfect - look how imperfect just about every aspect of California's Prop. 215 was back in '96 - but it led to a wave of other states following the path. Good luck to Washington in November.

[dunphy]

for the record, Nevada already did this a few years back. i can't recall the %age by which it failed, but it was reasonably close iirc

[deified]

If you click on the polls, you see that legalization has ~55% approval in polls. The rule of thumb is that you have to start out with ~60% to gain Election Day victory (e.g. overcome a "natural" rate of attrition from risk-averse voters).

[Pro Libertate]

I imagine a significant percentage of those polled are nervous about saying they approve. You know, with the WoD and stuff.

[deified]

Hopefully you're right.

Recall, however, that Prop. 19 was leading until the very end. They also had a huge funding advantage (although they downplayed that) and yet, lacking enough of a cushion, they still lost.

🙁

[Joshua Corning]

Recall, however, that Prop. 19 was leading until the very end.

Washington is not California.

When an initiative polls at 55% it means something here.

I don't know if will pass or not...but expect a smaller attrition rate then what was seen with prop 19.

[David Pinto]

They need to get Tim Lincecum campaigning for this. 🙂

[deified]

I'll bet his contract has a "morals clause" that prohibits this.

Seriously, I'd be willing to wager a tidy sum that he won't campaign publicly for this. I'd wager a smaller sum that he won't even publicly express his support.

His agent will tell him that this is a great way to simultaneously lose supporters and gain an FBI file.

[dunphy]

i'm not sure such an employment contract would pass constitutional muster.

iow, an employment contract that would prohibit advocacy for a political position.

i'd defer to an expert like prof. volokh etc. on this, of course

[Joshua Corning]

Tim Eyman would do better.

[Mailman]

The article misrepresents the situation: New Approach Washington has not collected any signatures yet (let alone 100,000). There is another initiative hoping to be placed on this November's ballot, developed by Sensible Washington, and that initiative has (supposedly) collected 100,000 signatures. Sensible Washington is composed of hostile libertarians (no doubt they would consider this a compliment) who apparently refuse to cooperate with other institutions of goodwill like the ACLU.

[Phlogistan]

"$215 million in state revenues per year which are already earmarked within the initiative for various state health and drug education programs."

I'm more then a little curious at how that number was chosen. Are they applying medicinal MJ sales as guide?

Oh well lets get it passed so we can find out whats in it!

[sloopyinca]

I'm interested to read the reactions people from WA have on the implementation of this through state-run stores.

I will read those reactions when I return from CVS in a little while with the bottle of vodka I plan on purchasing.

Liquor sales: the one thing California does relatively well.

[Phlogistan]

Can we summon Dunphy on command?

Beep!-boop-boop!

[Pro Libertate]

Pretty sure he's pro-legalization.

[dunphy]

yup. and i STRONGLY support this measure. it's suboptimal, but i'm a pragmatist and realist. i'm actually looking into seeing if i can help gather signatures.

[while on duty?]

[dunphy]

um, no. i think mj is lame as fuck. i wouldn't smoke it if it's legal. i just don't think as a matter of policy, it should be illegal

[dunphy]

we already have state run liquor stores here in WA btw. i;m not a fan, but last election two ballot initiatives to privatize the sales both failed. iirc, costco was a big backer of one of them.

i'm against them on PRINCIPLE, but ime (i deal with them all the time) they are pretty well run and we do have a lower incidence of juveniles in possession of (hard) liquor, which is what they sell (on a per capita basis), which they argue is one of the reasons to keep control in state hands. again, i'm against that, but they are run reasonably well - for a govt program lol

[Hard On For Liberty]

So what? Kids like booze. Mind your own fucking business.

[Rock Action]

Splitting the difference: It's like the medical marijuana/full legalization debate the reform PACs had in the late nineties. That was done correctly, and now the movement has broadened to concentrate some of its energies on full legalization. Regarding taxation and control, the one drawback and distinction I can see is that people are appalled by criminal justice abuses that result in imprisonment, but regulatory overreach and onerous taxation don't engender the same type of reaction. You may have a much harder time unwinding the control/distribution aspect of this legislation than the actual legalizing of it, because a) appealing to the public isn't as effective, and b) the bureaucratic structures in place to enforce the regulation will be cemented, and likely expanding. It's not as tidy a proposition as just passing it and then subsequently dealing with the means of implementation and enforcement.

[Phlogistan]

Well if Washington state passes it. We can all watch the problems that develop in its implementation.

Other states can adopt/change/mismanage/recoil in horror as they will

[dunphy]

a great example of why i love our form of govt. with its laboratory of states.

[Rock Action]

I get that, and I agree with you, but the argument I was commenting on was whether the bill was adequate in scope. If the end goal is to have marijuana treated like any other any other product, should proponents of the bill push for private growth and consumption at the expense of possible legalization, or should they legalize it first and chip away at the regulations later? That was what my comment was directed at.

[dunphy]

i think the latter is DEFINITELY the way to go.

[Robert]

The goal should be to first institute something that the feds would not instantly make irrelevant. See my comment above.

A number of states instituted med mj laws in the late 1970s and very early 1980s, but you'd never know because of features they had that made them irrelevant without administrative support, which didn't materialize. If practically nobody even knows about them, what good are they?

[Rock Action]

I'm assuming non-enforcement by the feds or legalization at the federal level. It's more of a question than a policy proposition.

[Carmen Senz]

If you don't like drugs, don't use them.

[Jillian Galloway]

On June 17, 1971, President Nixon told Congress that "if we cannot destroy the drug menace in America, then it will surely destroy us." However, after forty years of trying to destroy "the drug menace in America" we still *haven't* been able to destroy it and it still *hasn't* destroyed us. Four decades is ample enough time to realize that on this important issue President Nixon wrong! All actions taken as a result of his invalid and paranoid assumptions (e.g. the federal marijuana prohibition) should be ended immediately!

It makes no sense for taxpayers to fund the federal marijuana prohibition when it *doesn't* prevent people from using marijuana and it *does* make criminals incredibly wealthy and incite the Mexican drug cartels to murder thousands of people every year.

We need legal adult marijuana sales in supermarkets, gas stations and pharmacies for exactly the same reason that we need legal alcohol and tobacco sales - to keep unscrupulous black-market criminals out of our neighborhoods and away from our children. Marijuana must be made legal to sell to adults everywhere that alcohol and tobacco are sold.

[Joshua Corning]

If this passes i might actually start liking my fellow Washington voters again.

By the way i don't think they are "Sheeple". I simply disagree with the politics of the majority of them.

[dunphy]

get off your ass and ASSIST with gathering signatures if you are in WA as you imply. i am looking into it as we speak.

[Joshua Corning]

Fuck you!!!

I am lazy...so i will be writing a check instead.

By the way you don't have to live in Washington to write a check.

That means libertarians in the other 49 need to bring it.

http://newapproachwa.org/content/initiative

Contribute link at the site.

[dunphy]

well, fuck you too, buddy!

:p

[B]

A couple of clarifications: this is an initiative to the legislature for *next* year. When they get it, they can either pass it outright (unlikely) OR put it on the November 2012 ballot.

Also, it proposes to sell MJ in "state-licensed" stores, not necessarily the liquor stores owned and run by the state. (The private stores that currently sell beer and wine are "state-licensed".)

My main misgiving is that the blood THC concentration for pro se DUI is 5 ng/ml, which is fairly conservative. Some daily smokers have that much even after a day or two off.

[Phlogistan]

Still it beats having your dog shot, kids terrorized, wife beaten, and you hauled of to never land for sitting in your own home.

[dunphy]

when sitting is criminalized only criminals will sit!

[dunphy]

i'm curious where they got that #. i don't recall any #'s from the NHTSA studies i looked at (a long time ago), but that SOUNDS pretty low

[Zuo]

Blood concentrations are bogus. An arbitrary bullshit method. Sobriety/motor skills tests have much more rationality.

[dunphy]

oh, christ not this crap again

[Tulpa]

The question is, in the event that this passes in 2012, who is going to have standing to sue the state govt when it indefinitely delays implementation. I don't see how anyone would (at least anyone in favor of legalization).

Note that until they open the stores, any possession of MJ will be outside the confines of the new law.

[Zuo]

Alright, so what all states do we think will 'legalize it' in 2011 or 2012? Anybody got a list of likelys and relative odds?

[california]

how is this legalization? you still cant grow it in your home or share it with friends. Instead smoke some garbage that the government will grow for these dispensaries. All in all if you cant grow it at home or share it...your doors still getting kicked in and your going to jail...soooooo how does that stop the war on drugs!! Retarded! Keep it medical...regulate dispensaries and instead of some average stoner opening one on every corner only people with Pharm D degrees can run them. Just like Walgreen's or CVS or what have you.
simple.

[colin]

You sound like a true profiteer. There is a segment of the pro cannabis population that fights everything except medical legislation. Home brewing wasn't legal when alcohol prohibition was repealed. Passing a law requires meeting in the middle. The people that care about this stuff don't just quit when they get one foot in the door. Once people realize that the world won't end upon legalization, more rights will be easier to acquire.

[malcolm kyle]

Some simple facts:

* A rather large majority of people will always feel the need to use drugs, such as heroin, opium, nicotine, amphetamines, alcohol, sugar, or caffeine.

* Due to Prohibition, the availability of mind-altering drugs has become so universal and unfettered, that in any city of the civilized world, any one of us would be able to procure practically any drug we wish within an hour.

* The massive majority of people who use drugs do so recreationally - getting high at the weekend then up for work on a Monday morning.

* A small minority of people will always experience drug use as problematic.

* Throughout history, the prohibition of any mind-altering substance has always exploded usage rates, overcrowded jails, fueled organized crime, created rampant corruption of law-enforcement, even whole governments, and induced an incalculable amount of suffering and death.

* It's not even possible to keep drugs out of prisons, but prohibitionists wish to waste hundreds of billions of our money in an utterly futile attempt to keep them off our streets.

* Prohibition kills more people and ruins more lives than the prohibited drugs have ever done.

* The United States jails a larger percentage of it's own citizens than any other country in the world, including those run by the worst totalitarian regimes.

* The urge to save humanity is almost always a false-face for the urge to rule it.
- H. L. Mencken (1880-1956) American editor, essayist and philologist.

* In 'the land formally known as free', all citizens have been stripped of their 4th amendment rights and are now totally subordinate to a corporatized, despotic government with a heavily armed and corrupt, militarized police force whose often deadly intrusions into their homes and lives are condoned by an equally corrupt and spineless judiciary.

* As with torture, prohibition is a grievous crime against humanity. If you support it, or even simply tolerate it by looking the other way while others commit it, you are an accessory to a very serious moral transgression against humanity.

* America re-legalized certain drug use in 1933. The drug was alcohol, and the 21st amendment re-legalized its production, distribution and sale. Both alcohol consumption and violent crime dropped immediately as a result, and, very soon after, the American economy climbed out of that same prohibition engendered abyss into which it had previously been pushed.

[RileyF]

I have nothing against individual behavior in ones own home, as long as it does not harm a child or animal and all the parties involved are consenting adults. I do worry that personal responsibility is dying out in our current society and since we already have airline pilots trying to fly drunk, what's to stop them from flying stoned. If people knew their limitations and could handle the responsibility, I would be for legalization, but we continuously drop standards and expectations in education/workplace/civil behavior so no good can come of this.

[colin]

Do you go to work drunk? How many pilots go to work every day/every year and do things the right way. There will always be people that will be poor examples...they will be held high for all to see. But when the rest of us do things the right way over and over, no one ever mentions it. Stop imposing your morals on other people. Being free requires standing up for civil liberties. No good can come from having mcdonalds on every corner. Would you have us prohibit mcdonalds?

[cheyspy]

More people died from prescription pills last year than alcohol. Guess how many deaths resulted from marijuana use: 0 (zero). Personal responsibilty is dying out in our country because of moral imposing folks like you RileyF. No one can remember how to think for themselves, because people like you tell them what to do! No smoking, no drinking and driving, no speeding, no passing on the right, no running red lights, wear seat belts, extra tax on 'sugary' foods...the list goes on brother. More liberty makes people more responsible for their decisions. Fear is our enemy, not marijuana.

[cheyspy]

This is all wrong. Marijuana will become government sponsored like tobacco. The FDA will tell growers what type to grow, how to label it, require chemicals for it, etc. Just decriminalize individual sales and growers, that is all that is needed. No good can come from buying everything government approved, labeled, and regulated.

[moncler jackets women]

i agree with you

[moncler women]

thanks a lot

[Air Jordans 2011 Shoes]

Here you can choose more new products, enjoy more discounts, so you get favorite products while saving money.

[Thomas Parfitt]

I heard someone say you could get a DUI for having more than 5 nanograms in your system. So does that mean the police can demand a drug test whenever they pull you over just because your eyes are red.How many drugs would said test, test for.

[Medical marijuana]

"GOD MADE WEED MAN MADE BEER IN GOD WE TRUST"

Top 5 reasons for Marijuana to be legalized are as follows:

1. It has beneficial healing properties for many mental and physical illness.
2. Save lots of money reducing prison, police and court costs.
3. Take a large amount of money out of the black markets and put it into the economy.
4. Tax and license it so people can grow, buy, sell etc.
5. It will create new industries and jobs.