I 502 Your thoughts?

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
R

Rosebud

Guest
State could be test case in marijuana legalization

How would the federal government respond if Washington voters pass Initiative 502 and legalize recreational marijuana sales. Arrests of state-licensed marijuana growers? A big legal fight in federal court? Or would the feds leave the state alone?
By Jonathan Martin
Seattle Times staff reporter

Initiative 502

Marijuana legalization and regulation
Timeline: December 2012: marijuana possession (one ounce of dried form, 72 ounces of liquid, 1 pound of solid form) is decriminalized. Drunken-driving laws amended to treat 0.5 nanograms of active THC like .08 blood-alcohol level.
December 2013: After year of review, Washington State Liquor Control Board begins issuing marijuana grower, food processor and retailer licenses.
December 2014: new marijuana law can be amended by state Legislature.
Marijuana stores: Retailers must pass criminal-background check, pay $1,000 and have no financial interest in state-licensed growers. Stores must be 1,000 feet from schools, playgrounds, libraries, game arcades and recreation, transit and child-care centers. Number of stores is set by liquor board, but state analysis assumes 328, equal to previous state liquor stores.
Marijuana growers: Producer license of $1,000 requires marijuana be sent to third-party testing lab for quality standards set by liquor board. State analysis assumes 3 million plants needed, grown by 100 producers.





In the waning days of a campaign to legalize marijuana in California two years ago, all nine ex-directors of the Drug Enforcement Administration simultaneously urged Obama officials to come out in strong opposition.
The pressure worked: Attorney General Eric Holder declared his office would "vigorously enforce" the federal ban on marijuana "even if such activities are permitted under state law."
Whether that was a real threat or just posturing is unclear: California voters rejected Proposition 19.
The test case instead could be Washington, where voters on Nov. 6 will decide whether to directly confront the federal ban on marijuana and embrace a sprawling plan to legalize, regulate and tax sales at state-licensed pot stores.
Speculation on the potential federal blowback is rife.
Would the Obama administration pick a legal fight over states' rights to try to block Initiative 502? Would federal prosecutors charge marijuana growers and retailers, even if they are authorized by state law?
Or would — as some opponents and supporters predict — federal authorities denounce the law but largely leave Washington alone?
The Justice Department won't say. But legal and drug-policy experts, asked recently to speculate, say any federal response is likely to be dictated as much by politics as by law.
Seattle City Attorney Pete Holmes, an I-502 supporter who talks frequently with federal authorities, thinks the Justice Department would back off after "a long, intense, fairly high-level conversation" with campaign and state officials.
"In the end, I think the feds will go with the will of the voters," said Holmes.
"Whole new ballgame"
Since the legalization movement took hold in the 1970s, at least 11 states — most recently, Rhode Island in 2012 — and several large cities have stripped criminal penalties for possession of small amounts of marijuana, usually making it an infraction akin to a ticket.
Full legalization has been proposed and rejected by voters in Alaska, California and Nevada, and is on the ballot this November in Colorado and Oregon.
I-502 is the most comprehensive proposal yet. It legalizes one ounce of marijuana for people 21 and older, and creates a seed-to-store, closed, state-regulated monopoly estimated to raise more than $560 million in new taxes.
Details would emerge in a yearlong process at the Liquor Control Board, but a state fiscal analysis estimates I-502 would result in as many state pot stores — 328 — as there were state liquor stores, with 363,000 customers consuming 85 metric tons of pot, all of which would have to be grown in Washington state.
That would be a "whole new ballgame" demanding federal action, said Kevin Sabet, a former senior drug-policy adviser in the Obama administration. He predicts the federal funding that requires a drug-free workplace could be endangered, as could federal highway and law-enforcement grants.
"These are the options that would be on the table," said Sabet, an opponent of I-502. "The idea that a state can collect funds, collect taxes off an illegal activity — I can't imagine that would be allowed."
Federal criminal prosecution of users, growers or sellers also would be an option. A 2005 U.S. Supreme Court case, Gonzales v. Raich, upheld the power of federal agents to arrest and prosecute medical-marijuana patients, in part because that pot could cross state lines.
An attorney in that case, Georgetown law professor Randy Barnett, said the legal arguments would be "even more forceful for recreational marijuana."
"Washington state is its own boss under criminal law, but what they say doesn't affect the federal government's authority to enact the Controlled Substances Act," Barnett said.
It's unclear, however, whether it would use that power. The DEA views all medical-marijuana dispensaries as illegal but has selectively enforced federal law. Last month, the agency sent cease-and-desist letters to about 26 of the estimated 150 dispensaries in the Seattle area, citing their proximity to schools. Most dispensaries, however, stay in business.
Should I-502 pass, arrests may have to wait until December 2013. By then, the state Liquor Control Board would begin issuing grower, processor and retailer licenses — and federal law would be violated on an industrial scale.
continued
tulip2.jpg
 
"Supreme law of the land"
By then, I-502 may already have its day in federal court.
One of the most-discussed possibilities is for federal prosecutors to seek an injunction blocking Initiative 502, based on Article 6 of the Constitution, which makes federal law "the supreme law of the land," pre-empting state laws when they conflict.
In a "pre-emption" challenge, federal lawyers could contend I-502 actively requires someone to break federal law. Such a challenge, for example, could hinge on requirements for the state to issue marijuana grower and retailer licenses, and to collect marijuana taxes.
Based on that theory, the Arizona attorney general, the Oregon Supreme Court and a California appeals court recently ruled that federal law partially pre-empted medical-marijuana laws in those states.
But University of Chicago constitutional law professor Aziz Huq said the history of pre-emption cases were "messy" and full of "internal contradiction." At times, the U.S. Supreme Court has been reluctant to toss state laws, he said, even when they conflict with federal drug laws, such as Oregon's assisted-suicide law.
"The bottom line is, the feds still could come in and bust marijuana shops, but the arguments to pre-empt (Washington state) law are weak," Huq said.
John McKay, the former U.S. Attorney who filed I-502, said he thinks the measure would survive a pre-emption challenge but hopes Congress, faced with a rebellion among states over marijuana law, would allow states to "opt out" of criminal prosecution in favor of strict regulation.
U.S. Attorney for Seattle, Jenny Durkan, declined to be interviewed, but sounded skeptical in an interview last year. "Every lawyer that I have talked to, including those who support the initiative, think that it will be pre-empted by federal law," she told The Associated Press.
Attorney Douglas Hiatt, a marijuana-legalization advocate who opposes I-502, agrees. "I think the feds would be in and out of court in 10 minutes. It's clearly in conflict with federal law," he said.
Both candidates for state attorney general — Democrat Bob Ferguson and Republican Reagan Dunn — oppose I-502, but say they would defend it if the state were sued.
Such a legal fight, however, itself would be good for marijuana advocates, said Allen St. Pierre, executive director of the legalization group NORML and an I-502 supporter.
"Usually we do not have the support of the elites, so the dissidents — NORML, the ACLU or other activists — have to go into courts alone," said St. Pierre. "This time, we could have Mr. McKay or the (state) attorney general representing us in a federal court. And that is why that dynamic — I-502 — is, to this activist, a ... dream."
Politicals "running for cover"
Earlier this month, the group of ex-DEA directors who opposed California's Proposition 19 spoke out again, urging the Obama administration to oppose I-502 and legalization measures in Oregon and California.
There has been no response thus far, and Gen. Barry McCaffrey, retired, who was drug czar in the Clinton administration, wonders if there will be one. He laments a "vacuum of leadership" in opposing "state laws that normalize marijuana use."
I-502, he predicted, would be a nightmare for employers with zero-tolerance policies and would exacerbate the state's "huge, chronic addiction problem."
Despite those problems, "politicians are running for cover" on marijuana, said McCaffrey, who recently registered to vote in Washington state and plans to vote against I-502.
"

Jonathan Martin: 206-464-2605 or jmartinATseattletimes.com. On Twitter
@jmartin206.
 
Who the heck is going to be growing this? If it isn't you NCH or NC, then maybe i don't want to play.

And next time Barack or Michelle or Joe asked me for campaign money I will be asking them to fix and change the stupid class of marijuana.
 
Vote NO...this bill will make and create where we wont be able to drive at all if you smoke within 30 days....Dont get me wrong Im ALL for leagleize...but not this way...as for the "who grows it"....you know the goverment will take charge of that...maybe say something like..."Look how many JOBS I created"...:rofl:...just my thaughts

take care and be safe
 
Rosebud said:
Who the heck is going to be growing this? If it isn't you NCH or NC, then maybe i don't want to play.

And next time Barack or Michelle or Joe asked me for campaign money I will be asking them to fix and change the stupid class of marijuana.

Won't be me. That's for sure. I cook more than I grow now. Liking it too.
 
I say the feds will win this one, regardless of what the vote is. Then the state will choose not to prosecute anyone anyway. Then the feds will have to decide where they get more bang for their buck. Just guessing.
 
Only those 100 can be growers? Or only those 100 with licenses can grow for distribution in the stores.
I'm too far away for this to have immediate impact BUT if the US Fed's do ever get off their high horses and stop forcing US policy down onto other countries, I will watch with great interest

Canada was already to go with change back in 2002 - till US threatend to close the border at Windsor and that was all she wrote.

More recently there is much fuss about US enforcement directing police actions in other countries. DEA office in Vancouver- oh yeah- been there for years. Reading emails without warrants in other countries to stop pirating and downloading - gotcha!

Off my soapbox now. (we could use an icon for that)
 
If nothing else, the legalization would move the entire issue of personal freedoms to the forefront of discussion on a national level. The federal gov. would certainly oppose it in word, but in deed.....? I have my doubts. If the state said "there's no violation of state law and the residents of the state are unwilling to spend the resources nessasary to comply" the feds would have to either cicumvent the will of the Wa. voters through federal intervention or huff and puff and take a "wait and see" approach.
Federal intervention would require money from other states, voiding the expressed will of the people, usurping the governance of the state, and the developement of a shadow law enforcement branch dedicated to this subject alone.
Using money from the federal gov. to maintain the prohibition could cause an extreme rucuss on the floor of the house. The biggest barrier to school desegregation wasn't staunch bigotry, but rather a opposition to spending federal tax dollars.
Opposing the voters will would be political suicide. Any logical person can see the tide on marijuana has been shifting for at least 20 years. When you ask people "wich is easier to accept, legalization or the attack on states rights?" They'll chant in unnison "Bring on the Hippys".
Introducing federal LEO wouldn't sit well with local LEO either. The friction between local and federal law enforcement is legendary. They don't co-opperate, step on each others toes and refuse to share information with each other. So enforcement would be nearly impossible, not to mention the state judges that could throw the whole thing into turmoil.
I personaly think most Pols would take the "wait and see" approach. They would try to position themselves as acceptable to both sides by decrying marijuana as destructive to society while promoting themselves as respectful to states rights and the will of the people.
I'm in favor of anything that furthers dialog on the issue.
 
What provisions are in I-502 for those of us who just want to grow for personal use? Would I have to register my little garden with the state and fork out 1000 bucks for a license? What about the DUI laws? I think it's a bucket of worms, and like Hal says, "If they pass it, they will come."


Peace
 
Part of the issue with testing is that there isn't a valid device for roadside testing of MJ like there is with alcohol.

In certain countries, they actually tried to do the roadside thing, but the courts ruled it was a violation of personal freedom to hold someone on the side of the road for the length of time it took to get the results so they ditched it.

Hemper- the more concerning issues is would you have to send your out to a lab in order to keep the license?
 
I'm not sure how I'm gonna vote, I know it's kinda selfish of me, but I like it the way it is, actually I may just pass over that square, I have absolutely no trust in anything these politicians get involved in, mostly its the dui stuff, I'm old, and I want whats best for the average homeowning citizen, not the states tax coffers, I'm pretty sure I'm leaving the Puget Sound Region anyway, headed for Oregon, I'm so excited you'd think I was leaving Independence, lol wagons HO!! anyway there's a farmers market, and a bunch of changes in my future.

P.S. I'd listen to the Cali Farmers thats been doing this for awhile, the've been living some of this stuff we're voteing on.
 
It seems to me if you can't grow your own (for leisure use) it is still not legal.
 
we need this too begin the process of descheduling it, without this detrimental step achieved, there will never be any descheduling.

I know how I'm voting...
 

Latest posts

Back
Top