Election 2012

Inside the Internecine Battle Over Washington State's Marijuana Ballot Measure

Marijuana legalization advocates are fighting a ballot initiative that would legalize marijuana.


BELLINGHAM , Wash. — The usual opponents to drug policy reform are nowhere to be found in the fight over I-502, Washington's ballot initiative to legalize marijuana for recreational use. Social conservatives are focusing their energies on a gay marriage ballot initiative and law enforcement types are either quietly opposing the initiative or supporting it. To the surprise of many, the loudest opponents of a ballot initiative that would legalize marijuana are people who want to…legalize marijuana.

Wearing a "Vote No on I-502" jacket featuring marijuana leaves, Steve Sarich describes his efforts to stop the passage of I-502 as a David vs Goliath battle. He's David. His Goliath is Alison Holcomb, ACLU attorney, mother of one, and the face of the legalization movement in Washington. 

Sarich views Holcomb and her group, New Approach Washington, as prohibitionists posing as professional drug reform advocates. Holcomb, meanwhile, says that Sarich's opposition to I-502 is about protecting his medical marijuana business from competition. Describing their encounters at forums as hostile would be an understatement.

"Every bad medical marijuana law written in the last five years was written by her," Sarich says.

Sarich shows me a graph that suggests Holcomb's law will impact medical marijuana patients who drive. The graph shows THC levels in the bloodstream as it relates to driving ability and how long it remains in your system. Sarich and his supporters claim that the proposed law's controversial DUID (driving under the influence of drugs) provision will make it impossible for medical marijuana users to live anything resembling a normal life, because the legal limit for intoxication is so low. Drivers caught operating a vehicle with over the 5 ng/ml per se limit of THC in their system will be considered under the influence.  Sarich contends that medical research shows that THC stays in your system for up to 30 days after being consumed.

New Approach Washington argues that the new provisions will act in the same way DUI laws do. They say there is a correlation between certain levels of marijuana usage and impaired driving and this new law establishes a way to deal with that. Some states with medical marijuana laws have zero tolerance for THC in the system while others accept certain amounts.

Sarich and other opponents argue that the limits will unfairly impact medical marijuana patients because of the time it resides in the human system. Further, they say, the collection of blood samples for drug testing from drivers is flawed because of its impracticality. The difficulty in defending a DUI charge is of great concern to Sarich and his allies, too.  

Sarich also contends that the law isn't even "real" legalization because it leaves marijuana in the Washington list of Schedule I drugs, a category reserved for substances that are highly addictive and have no medical value.

"If you want to do legalization, here's how you must do it: first you have to make it legal in the state of Washington. The AG has to go sue the Department of Justice to take it out of Schedule I. If you leave every single law in place that makes it illegal, how is it legalization?" Sarich said as he spread more charts and papers out on the large trash can we were leaning on.

Anthony Martinelli, the communications director for anti-I-502 group Sensible Washington, opposes the initiative on the same grounds as Sarich. "We feel that the initiative is a faulty piece of law and it's not legalization. It actually keeps cannabis a Schedule I substance state law next to heroin which can be amended," Martinelli said during an interview with Reason.

The ballot initiative as written does not include legislation for de-listing marijuana as a Schedule I substance in Washington. According to a Washington State Senate breakdown of the law the task of regulating the marijuana industry in the state will fall to the Liquor Control Board. (Proponents have also noted that the real scheduling problem is in Washington, D.C.)

Sarich denies that his opposition stems from his business selling medical marijuana. "That's just totally fucking bullshit. [Holcomb's] been running around going 'Look, it doesn't change the medical marijuana law at all.' So if it doesn't change the medical marijuana law at all, and I am only involved in medical marijuana, I guess it shouldn't affect my business at all, should it?" said Sarich. More perplexing still to Herich is support hte initiative has received from organizations like the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws and the Marijuana Policy Project.

Holcomb, a veteran of drug policy reform, says she's seen this all before. In forums she's called Sarich a "marijuana entrepreneur," while some I-502 campaign staffers have called him a "medical marijuana monopolist." 

"It doesn't seem that odd to me because this is the same thing we saw it California's Proposition 19. The Emerald Triangle [Mendocino, Humboldt, and Trinity Counties, where the bulk of California's medicinal pot is grown] were some of the most vocal opponents to legalization of marijuana. It's sad to me because basically it's people putting their personal self-interest over the interest of people being arrested for using marijuana. It's basically putting their customers at risk," Holcomb said in an interview with Reason after the forum.

To her critics, she describes her efforts in Washington as "incrementalism not idealism."

"It's the same argument that happens in the marriage equality debates. You have people that say, 'you know what if we can get domestic partnerships this year let's get domestic partnerships this year and let's wait for full marriage equality later.' And then you have people that say, 'No, damnit, we don't want to wait any longer,'" she said.

But the concerns transcend financial ones. Opponents of I-502 take issue with the licensing portions of the law as well, particularly the fingerprinting requirement for retailers and growers.

"It forces somebody, if they're applying to be a grower or seller, to submit their fingerprints to the FBI. This has never been done before," says Martinelli. "Obviously if somebody is growing medical cannabis they know that that's illegal federally but no medical cannabis institution has been forced by the state or a city to forward their fingerprints to the FBI claiming that they are growing an illegal substance."

The law, if passed, tasks the Liquor Control Board with running thorough background checks on all license applicants in the same way they do with liquor licenses. Part of this includes a checks with the state police and the FBI.

Sensible Washington has pushed legalization and other marijuana reform efforts around the state and are currently working on a 2013 ballot question that would go much further than I-502. Their planned ballot question would remove marijuana from the state's list of controlled substances and set the age for marijuana possession at 21. For now, though, they are concerned about I-502's possible impact on medical marijuana patients.

"The DUID policy is one of the main reasons we're against it because we feel it will lead to the prosecution of thousands of individuals and that you're switching from one form of prohibition for the other," Martinelli says. "This will fall more squarely on unsuspecting people, mostly patients who will never be below 5 ng/ml."

On the NORML and MPP backing of the initiative Sensible Washington's finance director, Cydney Moore, 23, notes that their endorsements of I-502 came with caveats. "They feel that the larger picture of sending the message of legalization nationally is worth, essentially, throwing Washington state citizens under the bus. We should have to suffer the penalty for what they feel would be a benefit to the greater good," said Moore.

Martinelli and his organization don't view Holcomb's group as prohibitionists, but they say they will work to repeal the DUID provision if I-502 passes on Election Day.

"They have the right idea and the message they're putting across is good, that we should legalize cannabis, but unfortunately they're not being entirely honest when they say their initiative would legalize cannabis," he said. 

NEXT: European Press Backs Obama

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.

  1. Two assholes are the faces of a good thing. Color me unsurprised that the real advocates are too busy living real lives to get so involved in politics.

    1. Sloop, I know that you would rather kiss a sun kissed hottie than your sister.

      The licensing and the fingerprinting and the continued and expanded role of the state are not good for liberty.

      1. Clearly it is much better to throw people in jail than to deal with more paperwork.

        1. I’m surprised you’ve ruled out droning them, Cytotoxic.

          1. I’m surprised you’re not too douchey to function.

            1. 4 hours and you came up with that?

              /sad face

      2. The licensing and the fingerprinting and the continued and expanded role of the state are not good for liberty.

        Very true, and unfortunately, both of these yo-yo’s are advocates for an expanded role in government IRT marijuana. One wants it to come from the police force, which in WA means rolling the dice with your life every time you get behind the wheel less than two weeks after smoking pot, and the other wants it by way of the state’s nannyist regulatory agencies.

        I repeat: two assholes.

        1. That shit’s nowhere near good, but it sure as hell’s better than what we have now.

          1. Not really.

            Simply doing as Hailey, Idaho has done would be better.

            It’s not a perfect or final solution, but it’s better than the crap I read here about WA’s initiatives.

            Hailey”: http://www.tokeofthetown.com/2…..e_prio.php

            1. It’s not a perfect or final solution,

              I hope you’re not advocating what I think you’re advocating.

              1. Re-education camps for WODders?

                I’d vote for that.

              2. We should round up Drug Warriors, whether they’re in the DEA, in Congress, or in the White House, put them in camps, and gas them?

                No objections to that. But it’s probably unworkable.

                1. No objections to that. But it’s probably unworkable.

                  Why’s that? There’s plenty of federal land out there that could be retrofitted.

        2. I thought we had had this discussion before and it was determined that what the test was looking for was not the traces that can linger for days weeks, but something more active with a much shorter half-life. sage was part of that discussion, maybe he can chime in. I don’t have time right now to research the chemistry.

          1. It’s the metabolites (what the intoxicants turn into after being metabolized) that stay in the system for a long time.

            The new blood test tests for the intoxicants.

            1. in?tox?i?cate/in?t?ksi?k?t/
              (of alcoholic drink or a drug) Cause (someone) to lose control of their faculties or behavior.

              So much for testing for intoxicants, since marijuana does not intoxicate. Or are they using the Newspeak dictionary for this one?

              1. Impair. Whatever.

                They call marijuana a hallucinogenic narcotic.

                I’ve smoked close to a pound of the stuff over the years, and it’s never made me hallucinate or go into a state of narcosis.

                Though it has induced me to make caramel popcorn at ten at night.

          2. I didn’t know that. Yes, we need sage to clear this up.

          3. Correct.

            The primary substance here is delta9-THC, which is subject to direct testing via blood draw for the oxidized forms 11-hydroxy-delta9-THC, and subsequently 11-nor-carboxy-delta9-THC, the metabolized form subject to testing more commonly known as THC-COOH.

            This is though to be under the auspices of CYP29.x mediated catabolism, which those metabolites are later tested via UDS/UDA.

            The half-life can range from literally hours for a TCH naive person (form and route of delivery does matter here, as even TCH seed oils do contain TCH in appreciable and testable amounts, anywhere from a few mg/L to over 200 mg/L) to 8-10 days for a chronic smoker/ingester of THC in the usual form and in Marinol (drobinol).

            1. So what blood test are they proposing to use, then? Getting popped for getting high 8 days earlier isn’t even within the same solar system as an impairment standard.

              1. 11-nor-carboxy-delta9-THC (THC-COOC). Same for Okie-land whenever a tox screen is ordered and within the pharmacokenetic/dynamics of Marinol as that is available RX, thereby using that as a baseline.

                I would personally argue for NOTA in this instance, but that is just me.

              2. Getting popped for getting high 8 days earlier isn’t even within the same solar system as an impairment standard.

                And yet somehow this is already the law in several states…

                1. And yet somehow this is already the law in several states…

                  …including Washington, IIRC.

            2. Sorry I’m not sage, but I guess I’ll do in a pinch. -)))

              1. Sory, but we still want sage. His emoticons are westernized. :-O

                1. As you wish, Sloopy. I’ll be vamoosed soon enough. -D

                  1. But you’ll still be on here, right? We need your expert advice all the time. Besides, how are Warty and Epi supposed to get that infection cleared up without your diagnosis?

  2. How are they going to catch people for DUID?

    Do they get them for driving too slow?

    They’ll pass any field sobriety test, and last I checked cops can’t force you to allow them to draw blood. They need a medic for that.

    1. They’ll pass any field sobriety test, and last I checked cops can’t force you to allow them to draw blood. They need a medic for that.

      If WA is like most states, it’s an implied consent state, which means you must consent to a blood or breath test if required by a LEO, otherwise you are admitting guilt/face the same penalty as a positive teat.

      1. Who draws the blood? Don’t they have to take you to a hospital or something?

        I didn’t think the officer could himself draw it.

        Seems like a stretch to go through all that trouble every time someone gets pulled over with a little weed in the car, especially if they can walk a line and touch their nose.

        1. I know in most states they can require you to allow the draw or breathalyzer without a warrant, otherwise they can charge you with not submitting and levy the same penalty that would be imposed if you tested positive (over the limit). The charge may not appear the same on your license, but the penalties are the same and they can also often result in longer suspensions of licenses. It’s that way out here in California and was the same in GA and VA alike.

          1. Yes, in VA they took away the ability to insist on a blood test, and no refusing to take a breathalyzer is considered admitting guilt.

            1. in VA they took away the ability to insist on a blood test

              For alcohol. A blood test is currently the only way to test for marijuana.

              Can the cop take you blood, or must someone else?

              1. In some cities/states the cops are now being trained to draw blood. I am too lazy to Google it right now.

                1. this is correct, btw.

                  in my opinion, better to have a medical professional do it.

          2. I know in most states they can require you to allow the draw or breathalyzer without a warrant

            I understand this. I signed a similar piece of paper when I got my drivers license.

            I know cops can administer field sobriety and breathalyzer tests, but I didn’t think they were authorized to poke you with a needle. I thought they had to take you to the hospital or call a medical professional to the scene.

            Or I could be wrong.

            My only point being that it seems like a lot of trouble go through just to bust someone who can pass a field test, but just happens to be driving a little too slow.

            1. My only point being that it seems like a lot of trouble go through just to bust someone who can pass a field test, but just happens to be driving a little too slow.

              Nothing is “a lot of trouble to go through” for our brave first responders, nay, our heroes in blue that enable law-abiding citizens the right to traverse freely on the clogged and slowly-moving streets of that waterlogged city. In fact, they relish the thought of making someone bow to their will and have a needle stuck in them against their wishes. It’s not too far down the list from shooting them with a tazer for kicks.

              1. Nothing is “a lot of trouble to go through” for our brave first responders

                It is when there’s no loot.

                They can’t confiscate the car or the person’s cash (not to mention the drugs themselves) if the marijuana they smoked before driving a little too slow is legal.

                1. Right because cops never, ever find a reason to fuck with someone after they’ve pulled them over.

                  “Yes, sir, I understand that marijuana is legal, but my K9 partner alerted me potentially to other drugs, so you better come clean now because I’m going to search your car anyway and you don’t want to see what happens to it if I have to wait on a warrant to get here.”

                  1. Right sloop. I understand. I’ve been on the receiving end of that enough times.

                    They like the searches because if enough drugs are found, they can steal the car and all of its contents.

                    There is no such incentive if the stuff is legal.

                    Then again, they like things that are easy to prove. A blood test is easy to prove.

                    I dunno.

                    1. a blood test also offers protection to THE INNOCENT. something that is glossed over.

                      it helps convict the guilty but it ALSO helps protect the innocent.

                      here in WA, you have the right to a secondary test (blood) taken by a person of YOUR choice in addition to the state administered one, btw.

                      i’ve yet to see a DUI take that option, since they know the state test is accurate, all wanking aside.

                      WA already does not allow search of MV’s incident to arrest btw (yea! privacy!. we are rather unique and BETTER in that regards than other states) i might add.

                    2. Dunphy, correct me if I am wrong but a person is NOT required to undergo a field sobriety test? The legal sites I have read advised never to submit to an FS test.

                    3. correct.

                      fwiw, i WOULD submit to a FST… if i was sober
                      in fact, i did. i was pulled over in college and they did FST’s. i passed. stop was over. bfd

                      if you think you might be DUI *and* you don’t want to provide evidence agaisnt yourself, don’t do the FST.

                      the nystagmus WILL show evidence of impairment, btw. no matter how tolerant/practiced a drinker you are. it’s the one test that cannot be “practiced” and it’s a physiological reaction to alcohol. it can’t be overcome

                      i would absolutely say to take a FST. IF you *know* you are under the legal limit.

                      i’d say that in my experience, about 90% of people do the FST’s when i request. i always let them know “these tests are voluntary”. that’s pursuant to both good practice AND WA case law.

                    4. There is no such incentive if the stuff is legal.

                      But DUI is still illegal. So why can’t they still take your car and anything in it? Pretty sure NY seizes DUI cars.

        2. Don’t worry, the law will be selectively enforced. And there will be no repercussions if blood is drawn with negative results.

        3. It depends, does an officer punching you in the face and then swabbing his knuckles with a Q-tip count as a blood draw?

          1. Depends on the totality of the circumstances…i.e., whether or not someone filmed him punching you.

            1. exactly. SUPPORT FILMING. it protects good cops, protects against false complaints and brings the punchers to justice!

              1. Unless the cop destroys the film. Then he gets probation for the misdemeanor after the guy mysteriously kills himself in the cell.

                Justice indeed for destruction of evidence…60 days of community service and 3 years probation.

        4. Who draws the blood? Don’t they have to take you to a hospital or something?

          A hotly contested issue. In Texas, it needs to be a certified phlebotomist, nurse, or doctor.

          I have informed our local LEOs that the hospital, and hospital personnel, are not in the evidence collection business, and we will not draw blood for BAC (or other intoxicants) without the signed consent of an individual.

          Cops in Texas have been known to threaten to arrest ER nurses who won’t draw from a resisting patient, based on a semi-literate reading of the “deemed consent” statute. I’ve let our LEOs know that I am happy to take that to court if they really want to get all bowed up about it.

          We eventually made an arrangement.

          1. We eventually made an arrangement.

            Thanks for the cliffhanger, Mr Dean, but what arrangement did you come to?

            1. I think I can imagine this. LEO’s need ER’s and EMT staff, and eminent barristers like RC Dean can make their lives very, very miserable for court.

              As can doctors (no one can draw without an order), which is one of the reasons I tend to loathe and outright detest LEO’s.

              1. which is one of the reasons I tend to loathe and outright detest LEO’s.

                Welcome…to the bigorati.

                [laughs menacingly while rubbing hands together]

    2. How are they going to catch people for DUID?

      Same way that they catch people now for DUI, they are speeding, ran a light, whatever. Same type of things that people do every day when they are completely sober.

      As far as testing is concerned, I can guarantee you that cronies everywhere are busy figuring that out as we post here. Too much crony dollars for the makers of test devices for that not to happen.

      Important thing here, is despite all of the flaws in these laws, is to get some kind of legalization passed so that the feds can make total asses of themselves. I mean even bigger total asses.

      My condolences in advance for all the pets of people in WA and CO that will have to die because of this. RIP ruffie and rexie, and rover too.

      1. i’ve arrested for DUI marijuana over a 1/2 dozen times. it’s not rocket science. you use the NHTSA approved series of FST’s, as well as the totality of facts and circumstances. sadly, the twinkie test is not NHTSA approved 🙁

        you transport to a hospital for a blood draw and of course under WA law, the arrestee has the right to get a second sample taken by a person of THEIR choice (although i have yet to see anybody do this ). then (in WA), you drive the person home and give them their criminal cite (we don’t book DUI’s unless there are extenuating circ’s)

        it HELPS to have a DRE to assist in a drug related DUI but not necessary (google it).

        i’ve arrested for DUI marijuana, DUI Kava, DUI cocaine, DUI heroin, etc. in all cases, you rely on totality of circs, training and experience, blood draw, etc.

        1. you transport to a hospital for a blood draw

          That’s all I wanted to know.

          1. np. that’s how we do it in WA state. the only exception is when it’s a MV collision and we have medics on scene, we can have the draw done at the scene. i’ve done that (blood draw at scene) for dui’s at least a couple dozen times.

            the ironic thing is that when we do a blood draw on a person IN SURGERY (iow unconscious), we still must read the implied consent rules to them or it will get thrown out.

            so, yes… i have had to get scrubbed and gowned, so i can go into the ER and read the DUI consent rules to unconscious people in the operating room.

            the law is absurd sometimes

            1. I wouldn’t let you anywhere near my OR. You can wait until I’m finished, AFAIAC. The patient isn’t going anywhere.

            2. the ironic thing is that when we do a blood draw on a person IN SURGERY (iow unconscious), we still must read the implied consent rules to them or it will get thrown out.

              so, yes… i have had to get scrubbed and gowned, so i can go into the ER and read the DUI consent rules to unconscious people in the operating room.

              the law is absurd sometimes

              I’ve got to call total bullshit on this. No way in the fucking world is a surgeon gonna let you contaminate his OR so you can read something to a person that is not able to give consent. If consent is implied, then it’s implied. No way would reading it to an unconscious person make a bit of difference to any judge in the land. Sorry, but you are, once again, full of shit.

        2. then (in WA), you drive the person home

          Why not do this to begin with?*

          *Assumes the person did not damage any person or property.

          1. You can’t spend a good deed on a bunch of shiny new toys the same way you can $1500 and the impound fees.

            1. Besides, I think the monthly quota on good deeds for a cop is somewhere around zero, while the quota of busts is considerably higher.

          2. because in some states, cops BOOK duis.

            in WA (at least in my county) we don’t

            different practice.

            in hawaii, we booked and they had to pay $250 bail to get out

            1. oh, and in my agency. WE don’t impound cars. private tow companies do. we don’t get any $$$ from impound fees.

              1. And I’m sure there is no money given to the PBA, FOP or a councilman’s campaign by the companies that are awarded those contracts, are there? I know that’s the way it works in Fullerton, CA.

        3. DUI Kava? That’s illegal? I thought Fijian immigrants just switched to alcohol when they moved to the USA.

  3. The Sounders have the coolest uniforms?!? MAYBE YOU SHOULD STICK TO BOSTON TEAMS GARRETT.

    1. Yeah!

      Besides, they’re nowhere near as cool as the White Sox 1976 uniforms.

    2. Just because the neon green washes out your sallow wop complexion is no reason to hate.

      If we ever get an NHL team I wonder what the mascot/colors would be.

      1. If we ever get an NHL team I wonder what the mascot/colors would be.

        Royal Gay trimmed in off-stupid.

        1. And the mascot could be an umbrella-toting hipster.

          1. That’s not nautically themed enough, Ken. Try harder.

            1. The hipster is dressed like the sailor from the Village People?

              1. Now you’re thinking, Ken!

          2. Sloop, that reminds me, the other day I found a store in Seattle that might be more than your blood pressure can handle. I give you: Hub and Bespoke the hipster bicycle boutique. So as long as that umbrella toting mustachioed hipster mascot is riding a bike, we are set.

            1. Hub and Bespoke is a retail “cycle boutique” aimed at overcoming the common barriers to urban cycling. We offer fashionable, functional clothing and accessories that let you ride your bike to the office, the market, or date night already dressed for your destination. We are located in the Fremont neighborhood of Seattle.


              1. Dude, you should see the storefront. They have twee baby animal helmet cover things. It’s disturbing.

            2. I just threw up a litte in my mouth…

            3. Damn you, Dagny. I’m gonna go outside and kick a duck now. And that duck didn’t do anything to deserve it.

      2. It’s not my fault I have a Winter skin tone, Dagny!

        1. Wait, wait, wait…did you just accidentally admit to being a ginger? It sounds to me like you’re a ginger.

          1. I’m a Winter III, you asshole.

            1. I’m a summer. No, wait, I’m a spring. No, wait, I’m an autumn. No, wait, I’m a winter 1. No, wait, I’m a winter 2. Wait a minute…this list is completely useless! You tricked me!

            2. Fucking guys. If you’re going to do this, do it right and give your MAC number.

              Also, Dagny, my sallow half-wop skin looks AMAZING in neon green.

              1. MALE GAZE!

          2. His hair is the color of a Cleveland Browns helmet?

            And no, I don’t mean brown from the dirt it has been pushed into for the last [enter random number] years.

            1. I don’t need to dignify Bengals fans with a response.

              1. Bengals fan? HA!!!

                Nice try, asshole. You can’t paint be with that shit brush.

      3. Is it bad that when seeing you were replying to Episiarch, I read that as a swallow cup?

        1. Tell me more…

      4. Rave green? Why change a horses midstream?

        Didn’t the Pilots played in Seattle before moving?

  4. I tend to agree with the side that says “decriminalization” is probably better than the type of “legalization” the statists are clamoring for.

    But that’s just because I understand the nature of government.

    1. Before you know it, you’ll have to be licensed to sell it.

      1. Then before you know it, you’ll need a license to have a loving relationship with another person… oh wait.

    2. Decriminalized leaves it just as much a civil violation, with no paperwork possible to make it legit.

  5. Alison Holcomb has been working for this for a long time. She guest lectured in one of my classes way back in ’06 or ’07 and came across as passionate and sincere. I don’t think she is selling out. First we had to have the badly written medical marijuana laws, to pave the way for stuff like 502, and then hopefully whatever comes after that will be better still. And it’s actually kind of encouraging that the opposition is coming from people who want an even more robust legalization.

  6. If they legalize, there is going to be some schema put in place to punish people driving while high. I don’t know if this is artificially low or if the test is inherently flawed, but to think that it wouldn’t continue to be a crime to drive is lunacy.

    Which is better: Alcohol prohibition or legal alcohol with DUI laws? If you have to struggle to puzzle this out, please do so quietly.

    1. I voted prohibition, but only because I like Paz de la Huerta’s tits.

      1. Nucky’s current whore is pretty boring compared to Paz, no? Even if I wanted to punch her every time she opened her whiny mouth.

        1. Speaking as someone who has looked at thousand of images from the 1920s… she may be annoying but the casting was dead on in the looks department.

          1. Billie, the new girlfriend, I mean. There were definitely Paz-faced whores in the 20s, but they kept them under wraps.

            1. I’ve missed the last two seasons, so this is news to me. I’ll kill Nucky for dumping his angelic Irish whore.

                1. Somewhere, I have some pictures of my great-grandma in her full flapper getup. I assume this is before her parents shipped her off to a convent.

              1. I was so mad that they shot Darmody I have hardly watched it since.

                1. THEY FUCKING KILLED JIMMY??? Fuck that.

                  1. Oops. Uh. Sorry.

                2. Guess what? They just killed off Billy too! ha ha ha ha !

        2. Paz is a drug-addicted, alcoholic, sloppy, whiny, butterfaced, floppy-titted mess. I want to take a shower every time I see her. She’s perfect.

          And here are some naked pictures of her.

          1. [clicks link]

            Ooh, I’ll be in my…

            [link opens]

            …oh, that’s a shame. Nevermind.

            1. And now you want to take a shower. See what I mean?

          2. Oh my god, I just realized she is barely older than I am. I would have put her at 10 years older easy. You have to respect making a career out of being a trashy slutty lush.

            1. We respect you for your ideas Dagny, how you make money doesn’t matter.

            2. “Burn” the “candle” at both ends…

      2. What’s wrong with her face? Fuck.

    2. there already IS a schema in place to punish people for DUI MJ. imo, the threshold levels under 502 are set too low, though, and they will be established when/if 502 passes.

      i’ve arrested for DUI many times for people under the influence of MJ here in WA state. it’s already illegal

  7. realizing that 502, like most legislation, is flawed… it was a wonderful feeling, filling out my ballot and voting for LEGALIZED (to some extent) marijuana. simply a great thing. the liberalization of both MJ and firearms laws over the last few decades are on the whole an overwhelming GOOD and a great example of liberty expansion that in many cases gets ignored when some will only concentrate on the negatives and liberty contractions we have seen in the WOT and WOD and the WODV.

    i’m optimistic we can pass this thing in WA and i’ll take flawed legalization over the status quo any day.

    and man i am SO looking forward to the feds getting all miffed and huffy once/if we legalize MJ. THAT will be satisfying in itself!

    viva FREEDOM!

    viva 502!

    1. I know we don’t like each other, but I wanted to ask you a question: will local PD’s refuse to participate in any way, shape or form if federal agents come in to bust someone?

      1. His won’t. He took an OATH. Have you taken an OATH? Didn’t think so. So you don’t understand.

        1. Seriously, can someone (other than sarcasmic) copy and paste my question to dunphy so he’ll answer it. I think I’m on his blacklist bigorati awareness program hotsheet.

        2. i have already explained that *i* will not assist feds in any action that runs CONTRA WA law.

          i have assisted the feds before, and been a member of federal task force(s) before, but in no cases did i ever have to enforce a law that ran contrary to state law.

          our union has already resolved that when and if this law passes, our loyalty is to the state.

          we’ve ALREADY told the feds to pound sand on a few medical MJ cases, so i think the precedent is set (with my agency).

          and btw, even though i realize i broke it in an ealier post in this thread – i don’t respond to sloopy, as i explianed about a month ago, but i do not NOT LIKE him. i don’t KNOW him. if we knew each other outside H&R who knows? i disagree with him, but you can’t (or at least i can’t) dislike somebody based on their internet posts. that’s retahded imo.

          again, though. i will not violate my oath.

          it’s really going to be interesting to see how this fed thing plays out if 502 is passed, though

          i am really looking forward to it

          1. Dwight Schrute dunphy: I’m temporarily lifting the shun.
            Andy Me: Thank you [makes wanking motion].

  8. in regards to the nystagmus. i can say this (and i have in court. and it’s been held up)

    i have never, in 20+ yrs of police work, seen a person give 4 cues of nystagmus who was not AT LEAST a .08


    i have administered HGN over 600 times and arrested for dui over 300 times.

    those are simply the facts. and they are backed up by filed documents.

    we did have a guy in our academy who had a “natural nystagmus” but i’ve never seen one in the field and of course that would create nysatagmus without alcohol consumption

    i’ve never seen a person give 6 cues of nystagmus who was not at least a .14

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.