Blogs Jan 16, 2014 at 11:24 am

WA Attorney General Bob Ferguson Says Local Governments Have Power to Regulate or Ban Marijuana Businesses

Goldy
Back to article

Comments

1
And the cities that ban those businesses will not receive any tax dollars from marijuana sales, right?
Cato the Younger Younger on January 16, 2014 at 11:36 AM Report this
2
Not so fast. Multiple legislators from both parties have a bill pending to STOP towns and cities from doing this: HB 2322.

Sponsors: Representatives Sawyer, Condotta, Appleton, Kirby, Fey, Farrell, Fitzgibbon, Hunt, Reykdal, Springer, Ryu.
Joe Szilagyi on January 16, 2014 at 11:37 AM Report this
3
Oops. I should have read before posting. And @1, no, it doesn't work like that. It should.
Joe Szilagyi on January 16, 2014 at 11:39 AM Report this
4
Don't some cities ban the sale of fireworks? What other businesses could cities ban? Could cities also ban alcohol sales within their limits? Adult entertainment? Gun sales? Could a city make it illegal to sell cigarettes?

What would be the reaction if Seattle tried to outlaw gun sales within the city limits? Would it become a 2nd amendment issue?
Charlie Mas on January 16, 2014 at 11:44 AM Report this
5
No pot for you, Eastern Washington. I doubt HB 2322 has a chance.

@4, gun nuts control every facet of the political process. Seattle's already tried to ban carrying guns in city parks, and failed at the State Supreme Court. Yes, there are gun assholes who like to walk around in city parks with guns strapped to their tiny dicks just to prove they can.
Fnarf on January 16, 2014 at 11:53 AM Report this
6
@4 State law explicitly preempts tougher local gun regulations. That's what the AGO says is missing from I-502: An explicit preemption.
Goldy on January 16, 2014 at 11:56 AM Report this
7
Since this law isn't even possible unless you believe that its okay for state law to override federal law, it's kind of hard for it's proponents to argue that local laws shouldn't be able to override it in turn.
David Wright on January 16, 2014 at 12:33 PM Report this
8
Why 7? Because law concerning federalism is supposed to work like a set of Russian nesting dolls?
Clara T on January 16, 2014 at 12:44 PM Report this
9
there was always going to be a backlash. republicans are in charge of local governments almost everywhere in WA besides the liberal bubble over puget sound.

and wahkiakum county. kris novaselic is in charge there.
Max Solomon on January 16, 2014 at 12:55 PM Report this
10
@7 that makes zero sense. Our national structure is:

US Constitution/Federal law > State Constitutions/charters unless where the latter interferes with the former, and then a court settles the dispute.

On the State level below that, what you describe is entire a matter for each State Constitution to settle internally. Some states may have that prescription, some may not. If they don't, they don't. In our case, we don't.
Joe Szilagyi on January 16, 2014 at 12:57 PM Report this
11
I can't believe localities will keep any bans as time progresses. The same thing happened with the end of alcohol prohibition and local governments caved to the demands of the locals. Besides, it means jobs!
Pope Peabrain on January 16, 2014 at 1:03 PM Report this
12
All those Dry counties in Washington are keen to ban the Mary Jane.

What?
sloegin on January 16, 2014 at 1:12 PM Report this
13
There are, in fact, no dry counties in Washington. Perhaps some folks living in the areas where marijuana sales are banned would like to promote a ban on alcohol sales as well. I believe the rationale would be same, only stronger.
Charlie Mas on January 16, 2014 at 1:23 PM Report this
14
@12, It's lefty culture hating. After all, these people moved to those Dogpatch USA armpit towns to get away from the hedonism of city life and mores.
neo-realist on January 16, 2014 at 1:42 PM Report this
15
Regulation as in restrictive zoning: Yes

But banning will lead to successful lawsuits that will bankrupt certain cities and counties.
Will in Seattle on January 16, 2014 at 1:45 PM Report this
16
For once, I don't care what Eastern Washington is doing. If Yakima doesn't want pot, so what? My only concern would be if their refusal to participate in legalization results in illegal activity that might violate the conditions that Holder & the Justice Dept laid out to allow our experiment to proceed.
wxPDX on January 16, 2014 at 2:00 PM Report this
17
@16, except that Eastern Washington isn't a monolithic bloc. If someone in Yakima wants to purchase pot, the law says he can, and there are plenty of people in Yakima who want to. But a tiny Republican minority sez "fuck you, hippie". That's not really very democratic, is it?
Fnarf on January 16, 2014 at 3:48 PM Report this
18
@17 Those counties all voted by healthy majorities to reject 502. It isn't a tiny minority unfortunately.
wxPDX on January 16, 2014 at 5:26 PM Report this
19
@18, it is a tiny minority. Most residents of Yakima and Chelan counties don't vote at all, especially poor residents and people of color (Chelan is 20% Latino, Yakima is 35% Latino).
Fnarf on January 16, 2014 at 6:09 PM Report this

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.


Add a comment
Preview
Posted by (your name here)

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.

Editors' Picks

The YIMBY vs PHIMBY Battle in Seattle
The Hot Charlotte at the Zig Zag Café
Council Candidate Tanya Woo Did Not Vote in a Local Election Until 2021
Show Your Love for Local Media with a Stranger T-shirt!
The Killer That Haunted My Adolescence
The Ever-Changing Bones Behind Underbelly's Black Curtain
The Stranger
is a proud member of the media network
Masthead Ad Info & Rates Jobs at The Stranger Contact Privacy Policy Terms of Use Takedown Policy Find The Stranger Near You
Support The Stranger
All contents © Index Newspapers LLC
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134