Marijuana

6 Ways Washington's Marijuana Rules Are Looser Than Colorado's

|

WSLCB

On Wednesday the Washington State Liquor Control Board (WSLCB) unveiled its proposed rules for the state-licensed pot stores authorized by I-502, the marijuana legalization initiative approved by voters last November. The regulations, which were to a large extent dictated by I-502, are similar in some ways to the regulations published on Monday by the Colorado Department of Revenue. Both states, for example, plan to prohibit sales to anyone younger than 21, ban Internet sales, limit transactions to one ounce at a time, ban on-site consumption, require warning labels, and limit marijuana edibles to 10 servings and 100 milligrams of THC per package. But although I-502 was more detailed and prescriptive than Amendment 64, Colorado's marijuana legalization initiative, Washington's rules are looser in several ways:

Residence requirement. Growers and retailers must have lived in Washington for at least three months prior to seeking a license. Since the WSLCB plans to accept applications for 30 days beginning on September 14, anyone who has lived in Washington since mid-June or earlier will be eligible. By contrast, Colorado's licenses are limited to people who have lived in the state for at least two years, meaning entrepreneurs attracted to Colorado by marijuana legalization are not welcome.

Fees. Washington regulators intend to charge $1,250 in license and application fees, compared to $4,250 in Colorado for current medical marijuana centers and $19,000 for newcomers. Then again, Washington is levying much heavier taxes on marijuana: 25 percent at each of three levels, compared to an excise tax of 15 percent and a special sales tax of 10 percent in Colorado (subject to approval by voters this fall).

Vertical integration. Unlike in Colorado, where retailers until October 2014 will be required to grow 70 percent of the marijuana they sell, in Washington regulators will issue separate licenses for producers, processors, and retailers. In a sense this mandatory separation of functions is just as strict as mandatory integration, but it is likely to be less burdensome.

Grow locations. Washington will allow outdoor growing operations, while Colorado will require that they remain inside.

Local veto. The WSLCB will consider objections from local governments in deciding whether to grant a license, but unlike in Colorado municipalities do not have the authority to stop pot stores from opening within their borders.

Timing. Washington plans to start issuing producer, processor, and retailer licenses in December, while Colorado will not let pot stores open until January.

One significant way in which Washington's regulatory system is stricter: Home cultivation is not permitted. In Colorado, by contrast, you can grow up to six plants for personal consumption and to share with others (up to an ounce at a time, "without remuneration").

Advertising is another area where Washington may end up with stricter rules. It plans to ban marijuana ads on public property, including mass transit, and within 1,000 feet of a school, a playground, a recreation center, a child care center, a public park, a library, or a game arcade. Washington's rules also prohibit advertising that depicts children or "is designed in any manner that would be especially appealing to children or other persons under twenty-one years of age." Each pot store will be limited to one plain-vanilla sign, no bigger than 1,600 square inches, bearing the name of the business. Colorado regulators have not written advertising rules yet, although the legislature has instructed them to ban "mass-market campaigns that have a high likelihood of reaching minors." 

NEXT: Opposition Leader Facing Jail Condemns Putin

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. Rudely off-topic, but Mark Steyn is on fire on the Rush Limbaugh programme today. He’s sounding pretty libertarian on 4th amendment issues (I’ve noticed this from a lot of people on the right lately…kinda like the democrats in ’06 I say), but the highlight so far was the quip about “Janet Incompetano”.

    1. FIRST!!! and it was a rambling blather unrelated to the topic at hand. Suck my monocle.

    2. I like that last term. The issue with the Right’s new found love of the 4th Amendment is whether it results in a change in the law and actual systematic changes rather than just killing the Obama people involved. It should be both. But if it is only the latter, it is likely to result in things changing for a couple of years until the heat is off and then going on as before.

  2. What are the six ways that Warty is looser than SugarFree?

    1. 1. Warty can eat his victim after the “festivities”. SugarFree, because of his dietary restrictions, can not eat his victim.

    2. 2.Warty can rape you in multiple non-euclidean dimensions, while SugarFree is limited to the four regular ones.

  3. Grow locations. Washington will allow outdoor growing operations, while Colorado will require that they remain inside.

    One significant way in which Washington’s regulatory system is stricter: Home cultivation is not permitted. In Colorado, by contrast, you can grow up to six plants for personal consumption and to share with others (up to an ounce at a time, “without remuneration”).

    Can home cultivators grow outside in Colorado?

  4. WA makes it legal to smoke certain flowers provided you don’t grow them yourself? That’s dumb.

    1. In Washington all legal weed must be taxed, tested and regulated. Colorado wins on “liberty” hands down.

      1. They’ll probably tax and regulate the shit out of it to the point where the legal price is comparable to the black market price, so they can continue the profitable war on those who don’t ask permission and take orders.

        1. We’ll reach the Kafka point when pot-growing conglomerates petition, and are awarded, government subsidies to compete with the black-market. They’ve got the basic protectionist framework in place, lobbying for taxpayer funding is the logical next step.

  5. Is a greenhouse considered as indoors or outdoors?

    1. The whole outdoors is a greenhouse, man! CO2 is poisoning our planet!

  6. Wasn’t this pretty obvious to most anti-prohibitionists? I knew that full legalization was never an option for these assholes, and that these sorts of unholy regulatory regimes were the closest we were going to get to ending the prohibition of drugs.

    Letting people do whatever they want, after all, is libertard anarchism and shit, or something.

  7. It’s working out great so far (and so far the feds haven’t done jackshit as I predicted ). I’ve already gone into a few houses where people now prominently display bongs and MJ smokers can and generally do feel comfortable admitting to MJ use and in some cases, even smoking in front of a LEO.

    When you look at our right to privacy in our constitution (state constitution) and all the ways it substantially limits search and seizure compared to most other states, our shall issue gun permits, our open carry w/o a permit required, our very strong initiative system, and our legalized MJ, WA has some pretty expansive liberty protections. It’s a great state.

    1. Here in Maine open carry is technically legal. Though if you try it cops will stop you, question you, run you for warrants, search you for contraband, and if that fails they’ll still put you in jail for the night anyway on some charge that will be dropped the next morning. As for your gun? You’ll never see it again unless you’re willing to pay an attorney five times what the gun is worth.

      Did I ever mention that I hate cops?

      1. You hate cops? Gee, the things you learn…

      2. Didn’t New Hampshire pass a law specifically forbidding police officers from initiating contact with anybody on the basis of possessing a firearm? Sounds like something Maine could use.

        1. Wow. Maine sucks. Open Carry forum is full of people talking about open carrying in WA and not having any problems whatsoever. MY partner open carries sometimes and has never been hassled once.

          Sometimes a store clerk will get all uppity, but they usually get shot down by the manager since official policy for most stores (like Starbux) is to allow open carry. I saw a guy at Walmart a couple of weeks ago open carrying and nobody cared.

          1. But everybody knows your partner is a cop, so they don’t get fussy. It’s probably his mustache. A real cop mustache. Dead giveaway. 😉

          2. In the case of NH, it was an occasional problem in Manchester. Even though New Hampshire’s always been good on the issue, and the most you’d get is having to stand still and take shit from a cop about your gun for 30 minutes, the Free Staters went batshit and proposed restrictions on the cops.

            It sounds like it’s a much bigger problem in Maine, and if what you’re saying about your area is true, that’s great. It indicates that most people there aren’t pussies who tremble at the sight of an inanimate object.

            1. It indicates that most people there aren’t pussies who tremble at the sight of an inanimate object.

              That’s the whole thing. Someone tries to open carry round here, and a dozen frantic women are calling 911.

              Kinda puts the cops in a bind. On the one hand the person who is carrying openly is not committing a crime, but on the other hand there’s a bunch of fearful mothers demanding that the cops do something.

              So the cops arrest the guy for some catchall like disorderly conduct or disturbing the peace.

          3. Sometimes a store clerk will get all uppity, but they usually get shot down by the manager

            Man, that is harsh!

          4. Wow. Maine sucks.

            Not really. Maine is a nice place to live.

            Cops suck.

            1. It’s like big cities in otherwise pro-gun states. I love Texas, but I’m not sure you’d get far without hassle if you walked down a street in Houston with a rifle slung across your shoulder.

              1. —“I love Texas, but I’m not sure you’d get far without hassle if you walked down a street in Houston with a rifle slung across your shoulder.”—

                I was in Houston about 2 years ago for work. In the lobby of the hotel they had a sign stating that they did not allow open carry of firearms in the lobby area. No big deal with the sign but below it, they had another sign which I expect said the same thing, but it was in Braille. WTF.

        2. Sounds like a law every state could use. And you could expand it to include cameras. Make it a felony for any cop to initiate contact with anyone on the basis of them using a camera in public.

          1. Better yet, you could expand it to include everything that isn’t a specific crime.

            Not busy beating someone to death or robbing someone? Cops are forbidden from so much as wishing you a good day.

            Sounds good to me.

            1. Perhaps so. Here is the thing Dunphy. The ability to talk to someone using a camara is a discretionary power given to police. And as the numerous cases posted by Reason show, cops have been abusing this power left and right. They are routinely arresting people for what has been clearly established is a constitutional right. So, yes, cops need to lose that power.

              Here is the bottom line. Citizens should be up cops’ asses at all times and any power cops start abusing, needs to be taken away. When cops’ behavior improves, we can talk about giving it back.

              1. I’m not Dunphy, and I was being serious, just in case. 😛

                And yeah, this isn’t the sort of thing you should leave at the discretion of law enforcement.

                1. It is funny. I read that post as being sarcastic and just assumed without looking Dunphy was writing it. And yeah, I would agree with you. Unless they are investigating something and think I might know something, a cop has no business approaching me about anything.

                  1. That’s exactly the way it should be. There’s absolutely no reason for a cop to be allowed to interact with people while he’s performing his duties as a police officer.

                    “Hey there, buddy, I’m with the Bumfuck Police Department. Not got anything illegal in that car of yours, have you?”

                    *Citizen nervously sniggers, signifying nothing meaningful.*

                    “Well now, boy, you’ve just given me a reason to be suspicious. HANDS ON THE FUCKING CAR.”

                    Unless you have a warrant, fuck off, officer — I’m not saying another word to you, whether it’s “How’s it hangin’?”, or whether it’s answering a question you’ve baselessly asked me.

                    1. *without a good, justifiable reason.

                  2. Unless they are investigating something and think I might know something, a cop has no business approaching me about anything.

                    Inspired by Bloomburg, cops around here have taken to doing exactly that on the weekends. A group of I think nine officers, a mix from different departments, walk around the downtown harassing people for their own good. And the sickest part about it is that then general public applauds the affair. After all, if you’ve got nothing to hide, what do you have to worry about? Principles? Awwww, that’s so quaint.

                    1. I’m skeptical of even that criterium for cops to be interacting with the general public.

                      “Unless you have a warrant for my arrest, or you have demonstrable cause to believe that I have something essential to contribute to a criminal investigation, Officer, you are not permitted to speak to me.”

                    2. Jesus Christ. That is fucking appalling. And when the downtown dies and no one goes there, it will never dawn on them that maybe having a bunch of goons walking around harassing people had something to do with it.

                    3. They’re all polite and shit. Unless you defy them. Kinda like the TSA. If you don’t immediately comply when one of them asks for identification, then the guy will yell out something and suddenly you’re surrounded by nine men with guns.

                      But it’s for your own good. I mean, unless you’ve got warrants out for your arrest, why would you refuse to give your identification to the cops? Because by law you don’t have to? Oh please. Don’t tell me you’re one of those nuts who quotes the constitution. Just give up your identification already. Unless you’ve got something to hide.

    2. I’ve already gone into a few houses where people now prominently display bongs

      “Gone in” is a pretty passive euphemism for “knocked the door off its hinges executing a no-knock warrant at the behest of CPS because drugs and chirruns.”

  8. http://www.dailyprogress.com/n…..0f31a.html

    The 9-11 call the poor college girl who was being terrorized by the Virginia ABC agents made has been released. Get this little nugget buried in the story.

    ABC officials have acknowledged that one of the agents “unholstered” his gun. He did not point the weapon at anyone, officials said. Officials have not answered questions about whether his actions complied with agency policy.

    You are going to bust a college girl for buying beer and you took your gun out. What an amazing cowardly piece of shit. Was he afraid that little girl might be too much for him? Might beat him up?

    It is not enough to be dangerously stupid. The Virginia ABC has to be cowardly and brazenly negligent on top of that.

    1. May not have been cowardice so much as wanting to feel like a badass really, really bad.

      1. Which is another form of cowardice. In an actual professional police force, one of his peers would have pistol whipped him for being such a dumb ass. Instead, they no doubt cheered him on.

    2. For someone like me, it boggles the mind that things like alcohol control boards exist at all, much less that they have armed agents on the payroll.

      Fucking ridiculous.

      1. It is appalling. One of my roommates in college got a ticket for having beer once. The ABC agents jumped out of the bushes. It is the most ridiculous thing ever or so I thought until now. At least they didn’t pull out their weapons.

    3. But she could have had a knife.

  9. Open Carry Forum…

    http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/forum.php

    chock full o’ WA residents talking about their positive experiences open carrying here and it’s only getting better, thanks to advocacy groups spreadin’ the message.

    Personally, I don’t open carry. I almost never conceal carry. But I 100% support the right of those who do. It’s fundamental to liberty.

    1. You’re a cop, are you not required to carry off duty? If so if you don’t OC and rarely CC how do you manage it?

      1. We are not required to carry off duty. It’s purely discretionary.

        Like I said, I rarely carry.

    2. Apparently, among the best places for openness (literal and figurative) with firearms are Missouri, Wyoming, and Georgia. I’ve heard some really positive things about them.

    3. But remember kids, no firearms if you’re a marijuana user. Being a raging alcoholic or just plain crazy is fine though.

  10. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-25…..-benghazi/

    Marine Corps Col. George Bristol was in a key position in the U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM) chain of command the night of the Sept. 11, 2012, attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya. As such, he’s high on the list of people that some Republican members of Congress want to interview. But they don’t know where he is and the Pentagon isn’t telling.

    Pentagon spokesman Major Robert Firman told CBS News that the Department of Defense “cannot compel retired members to testify before Congress.”

    It is one thing for the President to be a lawless piece of shit. It is quite another thing for the Pentagon to go along with it. I am not sure when this happened. But at some point in the last decade the Pentagon lost the integrity to tell the President no and are now willing to lie to Congress and break the law to do the President’s bidding. They were always willing to lie to do their own bidding. But now they are willing to lie to do the dirty political work for the President. That should scare you.

  11. Open carry thread goes all the way back to 2009. Lots of “I carried and nothing happened” which is how it should be…

    http://forum.opencarry.org/for…..-OC-Report

    1. I also like the way many open carriers in the WA thread carry an informational pamphlet to educate cops (remember, back in 2009 it was not very well known. the 2012-2013 entries are much more consistent) and others about open carry. Friendly, sharing the love and the knowledge is the way to go , not arrogant. Attitude so often = outcome

      1. I’m willing to forgive the occasional cop’s ignorance and educate them. Fine. You’re supposed to know this, dude, but okay, I’ll clarify it for you.

        But that’s not what we’re talking about. We’re talking about cops intentionally fucking up people’s days and lives for this shit. It may not happen in WA, which would be great, but it’s still an issue.

        1. It may not happen in WA, which would be great, but it’s still an issue.

          It does happen in Washington. I can’t say how often, but it does.

      2. Attitude so often = outcome

        Rule of law means everyone is treated equally under the law. Attitude be damned.

        Rule of man means the outcome is left to the discretion of the guy with the last word in violence. If he don’t like your attitude, you’re going to have a bad day.

        Which do we have?

        I don’t think it’s rule of law.

  12. Was he afraid that little girl might be too much for him? Might beat him up?

    Hey, I just watched Kick-Ass for the first time last night.

    Little girls are surprisingly feisty.

    1. The amount of pants-shitting that occurred after that movie’s release was just fantastic to behold.

      PMG OMG BBQ WTF AH MAH GAHD GUNS N KIDS *aneurysm*.

      1. Was it any good? It always looked kind of fun to me. But I never got around to seeing it.

        1. I thought it was awesomely entertaining. Give it a shot.

        2. It had it’s moments but it’s not worth the amount of this-is-so-cool hype it got.

          1. It always looked like a renter (or is it a Netflixer now?) to me. But that is not necessarily a bad thing. Just because a movie isn’t worth $12 to see it at the theater doesn’t mean it isn’t worth anything.

            1. Honestly, I’ve watched it about six times over the last few years, and it never fails to entertain me. It’s great action fun.

            2. It’s a good movie. Check it out.

  13. In an actual professional police force, one of his peers would have pistol whipped him for being such a dumb ass. Instead, they no doubt cheered him on.

    In a police force not manned by baboons, his peers would all refuse to even speak to him, much less work with him.

  14. I liked it. (Kick-Ass)

  15. Open carry is legal in Montana, but I bet you wouldn’t get more than half a block down main street in Bozeman without being surrounded by a bunch of hysterical shrieking pussies with badges; guns drawn.

  16. Maine is a nice place to live.

    Cops suck.

    There you have it.

  17. Speaking of the insane religious obsession with guns, anyone read that moron at Slate (I know I am being redundant) who is obsessed with holding any parent whose child gets ahold of their gun and shoots themselves criminally liable? It is just bizarre his obsession with it. Every case of a child dying from an accidental gun shot is blogged complete with a rant about how the parents should be arrested. Somehow it never dawns on him that the kids who die because their parents left their pool unattended are just as dead. Or that polls kill more kids than accidental gun shot wounds. Yet, those parents are somehow not criminals but the ones who own guns are. It is a classic case of superstition driven hysteria. The gun!! The Devil!! The Witch!! All the same thing.

  18. Attitude so often = outcome

    Submission or death.

      1. Well we’re all outta cake. Didn’t know there would be such a rush!

        So your choice is… Or Death.

        1. I’ll have the vegetarian.

  19. Cake for some, vicious fatal beatings for others.

  20. o Creating a tightly controlled and regulated marijuana market;

    That’ll never be abused or interpreted to “do anything we want”.

    Ensuring public safety is the top priority;

    Isn’t ‘public safety’ behind every ban on the planet?

    Law restricts advertising within 1,000 feet of schools, public parks, transit centers, arcades, and other
    areas where children are present.

    So, no advertising… anywhere.

    Per I-502, LCB to determine number of retail outlets per county
    ? LCB to hold county-by-county lottery accounting for population distribution
    ? BOTEC Analysis Corporation determining county consumption levels.
    ? Consumption will drive number of retail outlets.

    Because there’s nothing like a soviet style system where bureaucrats determine supply and demand.

  21. “It plans to ban marijuana ads on public property, including mass transit, and within 1,000 feet of a school, a playground, a recreation center, a child care center, a public park, a library, or a GAME ARCADE.”

    A game arcade? Really? That’s good. That way kids from the 90’s won’t be tempted to try pot.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.