Pubdate: Tue, 30 Oct 2012
Source: Seattle Times (WA)
Copyright: 2012 The Seattle Times Company
Contact:  http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/409
Author: Anthony Martinelli
Note: Anthony Martinelli is the communications director for Sensible
Washington.

I-502 GOOD MESSAGE, BUT BAD POLICY

The majority of voters in Washington state understand that cannabis 
prohibition has failed. It's accomplished none of the intended goals 
(such as stopping youth usage), and it has continued to allow for the 
enrichment of criminal organizations. It's also continued to fill our 
prisons with nonviolent individuals.

Legalization and taxation is becoming the obvious answer to these problems.

Given this, it's no surprise that Initiative 502 has garnered a lot 
of support in the state. Unfortunately the core message of the 
initiative campaign - a message of legalization - doesn't correlate 
with the initiative language. Initiative 502 wouldn't legalize cannabis.

Read the initiative. You'll find that it wouldn't remove a single 
criminal penalty that currently makes cannabis illegal. What it 
instead does is create small legal exceptions for certain "activity," 
such as possessing an ounce.

If you possess two ounces, if you gift your "legal" ounce, or if you 
pass a joint rolled from it - it's "felony deliver." Given the 
initiative doesn't properly amend our state's Uniformed Controlled 
Substances Act (RCW 69.50), cannabis will remain a Schedule 1 
substance under state law, next to heroin, if I-502 passes. This is 
not legalization.

In reality, this initiative attempts to regulate, license and tax a 
substance that would absolutely not be legal under state law. It 
forces our state to collect taxes from an illegal substance, 
conflicting with our Federal Controlled Substances Act. This allows 
the distribution system to be rendered invalid in federal court. This 
will lead to our state getting none of the projected tax revenue.

Given this and given that home-growing would remain illegal, it will 
fail to impact the underground market that benefits criminal 
syndicates, because it forces individuals to the black-market in 
order to purchase their "legal" ounce.

One of the biggest concerns is the mandated driving under the 
influence of drugs (DUID) policy for THC, the substance that remains 
in the blood stream long after cannabis is consumed, regardless of 
actual impairment. What this policy means is that if an individual is 
above a designated amount of THC - 5 nanograms per milliliter for 
those over 21 - they're instantly guilty of a DUID. That 
automatically would revoke a individuals' right to defend themselves 
in court against allegations of impairment.

This same limit has been rejected three times in Colorado's 
Legislature because it does not have a scientific basis. It also was 
rejected in our own state just last year. State Rep. Roger Goodman 
introduced an 8 nanograms per milliliter limit for THC. He quickly 
withdrew this bill after realizing that there wasn't proper science 
to back it, and after the public rightfully back-lashed against it.

What studies have shown us is that even casual consumers (and 
especially patients) will fail this limit hours, or days, after last 
consumption. Driving impaired, regardless of the substance, is 
unacceptable. Initiative 502's mandate for THC has absolutely nothing 
to do with impairment. Look at states like Arizona, and even 
countries like Germany - they all have legal exclusions to this 
policy for patients. In an odd twist, drivers under the age of 21, 
even qualified patients, would be subject to a complete 
zero-tolerance policy. Even trace amounts of THC would lead to a 
life-altering DUID.

Our current law, which requires an officer to prove impairment for a 
prosecution to take place, works.

This initiative certainly has other flaws. If you're interested in 
learning more, you can find a detailed eight-part analysis of this 
initiative, written by a nonprofit, pro-legalization organization, at 
sensiblewashington.org/.

The flaws in this initiative will not be easy to fix. Complacency 
could push back meaningful reform, or positive legal alterations, for 
years. We shouldn't be the state to set such a bad precedent.

We encourage everyone to examine both sides of this debate, and to 
read the initiative language. It's not good policy, and we can do better.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom