Slog

Slog Music

Music, Nightlife,
and Drinks

Wednesday, November 7, 2012

The Most Important Thing You Need to Know About Washington State's Vote to Legalize Marijuana

Posted by on Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 1:37 PM

Washington State voters legalized marijuana last night. It was not just a gesture. It was not simply a statement.

Short version: You can legally possess up to an ounce of pot starting on December 6, and the city's prosecutor says there's nothing the feds can do about it.

Full version: By passing Initiative 502, we triggered a complex process to, for the first time in US history, create an above-board marijuana market, but put that out of your head for just a second. All that stuff will be hashed out in the next few years. (The regulations could potentially create a conflict with federal law—many say it doesn't create a conflict with federal law, and others say it does—but that has no bearing on the most important aspect of this law.) Here's what you need to know now. Starting on December 6, I-502's "Section 20" takes unequivocal effect:

The possession, by a person twenty-one years of age or older, of useable marijuana or marijuana-infused products in amounts that do not exceed those set forth in section 15(3) of this act is not a violation of this section, this chapter, or any other provision of Washington state law.

What this means is that in one month, adults 21 and older can legally possess up to one ounce of bud, 16 ounces of solid-form marijuana food products, and 72 ounces of cannabis in liquid form (such as lotions or, like, a shocking volume of hash oil). You can also have pot paraphernalia.

This portion of the law, says Seattle City Attorney Pete Holmes, who is both a prosecutor and a co-sponsor of the initiative, "is simply not preemptable." In other words, Holmes is saying that feds may challenge the licensing and the stores—but not the possession portion. Furthermore, "The feds cannot make the state criminalize that kind of conduct," he says.

So here's what it means for you: You can have that pot on you legally. You can have it in your home legally. There is no probable cause to arrest someone for possessing marijuana. Provided that you're not using it in public (just like you can't drink in public, which is a dumb rule, but it's parity), it's legal. Using it in public becomes an infraction, just like drinking whiskey on the sidewalk. You also can't drive high. These parts of the law can't be challenged by the feds, Holmes insists. Even though possession technically remains a federal crime, the feds as practical matter don't arrest or prosecute people for small-time possession, unless people do it on federal property. It basically doesn't happen.

So what happens to existing pot cases?

Ian Goodhew, deputy chief of staff for the King County Prosecuting Attorney, says his office is trying to figure out whether they will charge pending marijuana possession cases. "We haven't figured out how we will handle all of those cases," he says. But assuming the possession portion of the law is not federally challenged—and no credible lawyer thinks the possession portion can be—Gooodhew says that in future cases, "we cannot charge someone under state statue."

In summary: Pot possession becomes legal in one month in Washington, there will be no state law to prosecute people for possession, the feds can't challenge that part of the law, and the state can't charge under federal law.

That part's a done deal.

 

Comments (88) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
mkyorai 1
Quick question: how will this impact employment law? In other words, can employers still test for marajuana? If found, is it still a legal cause for termination? I assume that, like drinking on the job, use on company time would be a fire-able offense, but what about company drug tests?
Posted by mkyorai on November 7, 2012 at 1:48 PM · Report this
2
@1: WA is an "at will" employment state, meaning they can fire you for smoking at any time. Or for getting drunk last night. Or for liking Mickey Mouse. Or choosing to vacation in North Dakota instead of South Dakota.

Dom, I had a legalish question as well: it's now legal to possess, but does the coming change make any difference for selling? Or do we spend the next year in some legal limbo where I can have it, but I can't talk about where I got it?
Posted by Juris on November 7, 2012 at 1:52 PM · Report this
3
@2: Pretty sure you're on the money. Unless you're a patient, you can't legally procure it unless/until there are licensed stores.
Posted by PanPaniscus on November 7, 2012 at 2:02 PM · Report this
4
(Reposted from a dead column) I just don't see the feds going after WA and CO. They can't force WA to criminalize it and they definitely do not have the resources to go after small time users or even small time dealers themselves. Sure they could try to prevent WA from enforcing regulations and collecting taxes but I'd imagine that would be terribly unpopular with independents across the country: de facto legalization without tax revenue or regulations against the will of popular referenda.
Posted by PanPaniscus on November 7, 2012 at 2:03 PM · Report this
Dominic Holden 5
@2) Yeah, I think that's about right.
Posted by Dominic Holden on November 7, 2012 at 2:04 PM · Report this
Badger 6
The sales aspect is now in the hands of the liquor control board, so it will probably be at least a year before legal marijuana finds its way to store shelves.
Posted by Badger on November 7, 2012 at 2:05 PM · Report this
7
Isn't this exactly what they've had in Massachusetts for years?
Posted by gnot on November 7, 2012 at 2:05 PM · Report this
mkyorai 8
@2 ok, fair enough, but then, can they legally test for marijuana, given that it is no longer prescribed by the state?
Posted by mkyorai on November 7, 2012 at 2:05 PM · Report this
9
@1: Juris@2 is spot-on. Most of us have few rights vis a vis our employer's in WA. It does not mean that you cannot attempt a civil action for wrongful termination if your employer fires you for an arbitrary level of THC in your blood, or even for refusing to submit to a drug test; however, good luck winning.

Or do we spend the next year in some legal limbo where I can have it, but I can't talk about where I got it?


And @2, that's the legal question of the day. I don't believe it's clear at all. Though, in practice, no law enforcement in Seattle is going to much care where a casual user got the weed that she legally possesses (depending on your geography/skin-tone, perhaps...).

Dom's 72oz of hash-oil might raise some eyebrows, however.
Posted by Mr. Happy Sunshine on November 7, 2012 at 2:06 PM · Report this
Max Solomon 10
so, you can have it, but you just can't grow it, sell it, or buy it. until dec. 1 2013.

do i have that right?
Posted by Max Solomon on November 7, 2012 at 2:06 PM · Report this
bleedingheartlibertarian 11
If I were a dealer (and just to be 100% clear I am not) I'd just start selling...I don't know...candy bars. Really expensive candy bars.

With which you get a free bag of weed.

Posted by bleedingheartlibertarian on November 7, 2012 at 2:07 PM · Report this
Ipso Facto 12
OK, so how do we make it legal to buy/sell the stuff?

Does that require another initiative?

It doesn't feel like much of a change if the only way to legally buy it remains by way of a medical license.
Posted by Ipso Facto http://therealnews.com on November 7, 2012 at 2:11 PM · Report this
Renton Mike 13
@11 Brownies? or is that too obvious?
Posted by Renton Mike on November 7, 2012 at 2:13 PM · Report this
14
@11: That sounds like not a bad idea, actually.
Posted by MLM on November 7, 2012 at 2:14 PM · Report this
Matt the Engineer 15
@12 You have to wait a year. Governments are slow. I do think it would be smart for the WLCB could issue temporary rules.
Posted by Matt the Engineer on November 7, 2012 at 2:17 PM · Report this
Dominic Holden 16
@12) The other half of I-502 is all about how to legally grow it, distribute it, and sell it. But how, exactly, those laws a written and how they interact with the feds is unknown (first, the liquor board will draft rules and then we'll implement them). But to say that "it doesn't feel like much of a change" to stop arresting or penalizing people for pot possession--which make up 90 percent of all pot arrests--sounds kinda crazy. That is a landmark change.
Posted by Dominic Holden on November 7, 2012 at 2:24 PM · Report this
17
how does this interact with medical cannabis patients? Can medical cannabis patients still grow in their homes, and possess more than 1oz? Or will they have to apply for a $1,000/year growing license.
Can dispensaries still sell to patients after dec 6th?
Posted by mjquestions on November 7, 2012 at 2:25 PM · Report this
18
can I take my ounce of gack to the airport, and then proceed to board a plane?
Posted by andyedffef on November 7, 2012 at 2:26 PM · Report this
19
You can trust that the Feds WILL find a catch 22. They did in Montana.
Posted by Lindigo on November 7, 2012 at 2:32 PM · Report this
20
@19 under federal law even a tiny retail pot store in WA will be a great big felony distribution charge just waiting to fall on the owners. Even if legal, I don't see it taking too many successful federal prosecutions and long penitentiary sentences to put a big crimp in those operations. It's already happening to medical marijuana sellers in CA.

The question is not what CAN the feds do, but what WILL they do. There is no doubt the DEA can bust the shit out of sellers.
Posted by Westside forever on November 7, 2012 at 2:39 PM · Report this
21
@18: a plane to Colorado?
Posted by lucan on November 7, 2012 at 2:39 PM · Report this
Matt the Engineer 22
@21 that would be crossing state lines, bringing in Fed rules. The more interesting question is a flight within the state.
Posted by Matt the Engineer on November 7, 2012 at 2:45 PM · Report this
23
So does this law pertain ONLY for buying, selling through state regulation or does this affect the ability to grow?
Posted by asdfa;sljdfl;af on November 7, 2012 at 2:46 PM · Report this
Will in Seattle 24
Brownies ftw.

Starting 12-6-12.

Also, remember, not legal on federal property or military bases.
Posted by Will in Seattle http://www.facebook.com/WillSeattle on November 7, 2012 at 2:46 PM · Report this
Ipso Facto 25
Yes, that people can no longer be busted for possession a huge improvement.

My previous comment pertained to how marijuana use might functionally change.

People will still buy it either illegally from a dealer or legally at a medical dispensary, and will still use it indoors. (Is it written in 502 that it will remain illegal to smoke outdoors? Or is that imposed by a separate law? I suppose I imagined we'd be able to smoke joints wherever people can smoke cigarettes.)
Posted by Ipso Facto http://therealnews.com on November 7, 2012 at 2:47 PM · Report this
Ipso Facto 26
^@16
Posted by Ipso Facto http://therealnews.com on November 7, 2012 at 2:47 PM · Report this
Pope Peabrain 27
What if you live in subsidized housing?
Posted by Pope Peabrain on November 7, 2012 at 2:52 PM · Report this
28
@17: I-502 didn't change the provisions of the Medical laws, except indirectly and positively by providing medical patients a shield from arrest, while before they could be arrested and drug into court, where the medical card was a legal defense. Now they can't arrest med patients because they don't have anything illegal, yay! Authorized patients can still homegrow, and dispensaries can still sell exactly as they do now (but watch them shrivel up and die after the state stores that can sell to anyone open up).
Posted by Juris on November 7, 2012 at 3:00 PM · Report this
29
From what I've been reading you can smoke in the privacy of your own home. What about places like the Gorge? Not that I had trouble before but will it be legal?
Posted by Wish 80 Passed on November 7, 2012 at 3:01 PM · Report this
Dominic Holden 30
@17) I-502 did not change the state's medical cannabis law.
Posted by Dominic Holden on November 7, 2012 at 3:01 PM · Report this
Joe Szilagyi 31
@27 depends if it's Federal property.
Posted by Joe Szilagyi http://www.zombo.com on November 7, 2012 at 3:07 PM · Report this
32
It would be nice if the LCB would let the dispensaries sell to the public in the interim while they figured out how to set up their own stores.
Posted by skeptic420 on November 7, 2012 at 3:14 PM · Report this
33
It would be nice if the LCB would allow dispensaries to sell to the public in the interim. Don't think that'll happen, but it's going to create a lot of confusion on Dec 6 if there aren't stores ready to sell.
Posted by skeptic420 on November 7, 2012 at 3:19 PM · Report this
34
Sorry @11: RCW 69.50.101(f) in the WA Uniform Controlled Substances Act states,

"Deliver" or "delivery," means the actual or constructive transfer from one person to another of a substance, whether or not there is an agency relationship."


So whether you sell, share and/or give away free weed for every new savings account opened, it's still "delivery."
Posted by Mr. Happy Sunshine on November 7, 2012 at 3:21 PM · Report this
35
So you can't smoke in public just like you can't drink in public, that I get. But you can drink in a bar. Can we eventually expect "weed bars" or something like that where we can smoke in a public establishment?
Posted by StupidQuestion on November 7, 2012 at 3:23 PM · Report this
Will in Seattle 36
@34 but it's not a substance after 12-6.

@33 yes, that would be a SMART MOVE. However, one of the questions is: Do Medical MJ users pay state taxes above sales tax? I would hope, if prescribed, not. Non-MedMJ users would be taxed additionally (e.g. see liquor or cigarette tax fairly high). If WSLCB has not set a tax rate, how do u collect?
Posted by Will in Seattle http://www.facebook.com/WillSeattle on November 7, 2012 at 3:29 PM · Report this
37
@11, More info directly from I-502 (which I probably should have read more thoroughly before posting):

In chapter RCW 46.04 -- which is part of the RCW that pertains to the DoL, the initiative adds a new section governing the "Licensing and Regulation of Marijuana Producers, Processors, and Retailers." The new "Sec. 4." states, in part:

The production, possession, delivery, distribution, and sale of marijuana in accordance with the provisions of this act and rules adopted to implement and enforce it, by a validly licensed marijuana producer, shall not be a criminal or civil offense under Washington state law. [emphasis mine]


This means that someone must have a "valid license" in order to sell/deliver weed (except, of course, in the case of the already legal dispensaries). And until the Liquor Control Board -- might I suggest a new name to the state, "The Party Board" -- figures out the process for issuing licenses, there's no legal way to distribute.
Posted by Mr. Happy Sunshine on November 7, 2012 at 3:38 PM · Report this
38
News flash the state of washington is never going to be selling pot out of a store front. Ever. Period! Not in a year. Or two. Or ever. You think cops will carry scales around and give you a proper measurement if you have a bag? No. You'll be arrested before you are subsequently let go and lucky if u don't get a resisting arrest charge.

Have fun w ur legal pot.
Posted by PanWhale on November 7, 2012 at 3:43 PM · Report this
39
@34 WiS (Fnarf, insert insult here: __________):

Nope. It is still a controlled substance under the definitions set forth in RCW 69.50.101. I-502 does not change this -- it only amends RCW 69.50.4013 and 2003 c 53 s 334 to specifically allow possession.
Posted by Mr. Happy Sunshine on November 7, 2012 at 3:50 PM · Report this
40
I worked for the Washington State Liquor Control Board for 10 years. It's ran by a bunch of old, conservative, christian identified, non-drinking and non-pot smoking white men and women. The pot that they will buy or license will be the equivalent of Potters Vodka. The nastiest shit there is. No Seattle Skunkberry, Seattle Blue, Purple Kush or Big Budah. I for one will miss my awesome medical marijuana dispensary!! Also, with a 25% markup each step of the way, its going to be really really really expensive! I pay $10.00 - $15.00 per gram now for really excellent bud. Next year it'll be more like $40.00 at least. Thats why I voted against this!
Posted by GeeJosh on November 7, 2012 at 4:05 PM · Report this
41
@33,36 "It would be nice if the LCB would allow dispensaries to sell to the public in the interim."

Please read (about) the Republican freak outs to provide some context, when I say this has got to be the stupidest thing I've read all day.

Currently, the Feds have a pretty stable relationship with dispensaries: They basically leave the scrupulous ones alone and bust the rest.

Any dispensary that leaves its solidly defensible position of medical provider, even if it is distributing legally under Washington State law, is almost definitely feeding the Feds their cake and allowing them to have it afters.

Is there any doubt that this will be decided over the course of many lengthy and costly court battles? Why should any responsible dispensary and the truly sick patients who depend on it be ground through the machinations of justice?
Posted by People Will Be Fined And Jailed Before This Is Settled on November 7, 2012 at 4:20 PM · Report this
beatgrl 42
Okay, so a person could have it on them or in their home. What about in their car? (As long as they are not camping on our plentiful federal lands. D'oh!)
Posted by beatgrl on November 7, 2012 at 4:26 PM · Report this
43
So what will happen to all those incarcerated for marijuana possession? Will they get out then?
Posted by Mr. Tumnas on November 7, 2012 at 4:27 PM · Report this
Ipso Facto 44
Will it now be legal to be under the influence of THC while in public (as a pedestrian)?

I guess I should read the fucking law, huh?
Posted by Ipso Facto http://therealnews.com on November 7, 2012 at 4:33 PM · Report this
GlibReaper 45
Who decides if someone is addicted to marijuana? If one's primary care provider determines this, are they obliged to disclose it to anyone?

I'm curious about the impacts that this has on CCW license holders.
Posted by GlibReaper on November 7, 2012 at 4:35 PM · Report this
46
@43 asks an interesting question. I'm no lawyer, but my guess is there's no automatic mechanism for springing those people. But it does seem to me like a parole board ought to be inclined to look favorably. Perhaps a mass pardon from the governor would be in order? Maybe the legislature could do some sort of retroactive sentence reduction? Who on slog knows any law?
Posted by Eric from Boulder on November 7, 2012 at 4:38 PM · Report this
GlibReaper 47
Hmm.. maybe you can own one and have a CCW permit if you're using a controlled substance under the care of a physician but you can't purchase or receive a firearm or ammo. Not sure. Puking links and relevant text for reference:

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2012-ti…
Unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance. A person who uses a controlled substance and has lost the power of self-control with reference to the use of controlled substance; and any person who is a current user of a controlled substance in a manner other than as prescribed by a licensed physician. Such use is not limited to the use of drugs on a particular day, or within a matter of days or weeks before, but rather that the unlawful use has occurred recently enough to indicate that the individual is actively engaged in such conduct. A person may be an unlawful current user of a controlled substance even though the substance is not being used at the precise time the person seeks to acquire a firearm or receives or possesses a firearm. An inference of current use may be drawn from evidence of a recent use or possession of a controlled substance or a pattern of use or possession that reasonably covers the present time, e.g., a conviction for use or possession of a controlled substance within the past year; multiple arrests for such offenses within the past 5 years if the most recent arrest occurred within the past year; or persons found through a drug test to use a controlled substance unlawfully, provided that the test was administered within the past year. For a current or former member of the Armed Forces, an inference of current use may be drawn from recent disciplinary or other administrative action based on confirmed drug use, e.g., court-martial conviction, nonjudicial punishment, or an administrative discharge based on drug use or drug rehabilitation failure.

http://www.examiner.com/article/legalize…
“As you know, Federal law, 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(3), prohibits any person who is an ‘unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in Section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802)) “from shipping, transporting, receiving or possessing firearms or ammunition. Marijuana is listed in the Controlled Substances Act as a Schedule I controlled substance, and there are no exceptions in Federal law for marijuana purportedly used for medicinal purposes, even if such is sanctioned by State law. Further, federal law, 18 U.S.C. 922(d)(3), makes it unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person is an unlawful user of or addicted to a controlled substance. As provided by 27 C.F.R. 478.11 “an inference of current use may be drawn from evidence of a recent use or possession of a controlled substance or a pattern of use or possession that reasonably covers the present time.”

http://www.atf.gov/forms/download/atf-f-… question 11e
More...
Posted by GlibReaper on November 7, 2012 at 4:53 PM · Report this
48
So the penalties for smoking in public will be the same as they are now? Except that you get to keep your pot and your pipe?
Posted by cb on November 7, 2012 at 5:12 PM · Report this
49
I wonder if you will be able to buy edibles in most bars in a year.
Posted by JonnyH on November 7, 2012 at 5:24 PM · Report this
cedarthvader 50
When will The Stranger put out a complete FAQ guide to the new law?
Posted by cedarthvader http://open.salon.com/blog/cedar_burnett on November 7, 2012 at 5:40 PM · Report this
51
I use marijuana for medical reasons and yet the duid law for blood testing is disconcerting if I drive, not saying I drive after smoking, but it could still come back 5ng mil from what I have read. There is no real answer that addresses this question. We know how much is too much with drinking but not with marijuana. I am now looking to have a lawyer on call should I be pulled over for something that gives cause to profile me. Any comments to the question of how much long does one wait before driving. Just saying it is so confusing to want to be legal to drive.
Posted by littlelady on November 7, 2012 at 6:47 PM · Report this
Ipso Facto 52
@38 raises an interesting question. How will a cop determine the weight of weed a person has in their possession? They probably won't be carrying a scale. Will they be left to eyeball it?

It seems this will leave quite a lot of discretion to the officer.

I guess we've pushed the ball forward with I-502. But I'm not clear on just what sort of change we'll see in the near term.
Posted by Ipso Facto http://therealnews.com on November 7, 2012 at 7:27 PM · Report this
53
@38 you are on the wrong side of history bud. Gonna pity your regrettable situation when your progeny grows up and is embarrassed to know their parental figure had such an archaic mindset. They'll look at you like we look at senior citizens who are racists today.

Clearly you have never seen an Oz. of weed either....most people aren't going to be carrying that big a bag around on them dumbass.

@51 from what I understand, when it comes to blood tests, for the most part pot leaves your active bloodstream (its been absorbed beyond that by this point) in a matter of like 2-3 hours. So basically, just be responsible. Don't smoke if you have shit to go do, you can always roll a joint at the end of the day, or on a day you don't intend to need to drive anywhere. Or call a cab/friend. I hope people in these 2 states look out for the vested interest the other 48 states have in this (let alone the world) and remember to handle this freedom with a "Man up" attitude and don't end up DUI'ing, or violating the rules in other ways. We need you guys to show the feds that cannabis consumers can, and will, handle this long-sought freedom with the respect for the letter of the law in order to have our civil liberty with it.
Posted by DiscreteUser1 on November 7, 2012 at 8:52 PM · Report this
54
I think people are thinking in the wrong direction. If possession of a personal amount publicly is no longer illegal, forget distribution. Anyone who deserves they're high school diploma should be able to figure out a low maintainance, low heat "Sea of Green" setup that'll fit in all but the smallest studio apartment and be quite adequate to provide someone with a sizeable personal supply. As long as you are not distributing and never leave home with more than a personal amount, who'll ever be the wiser and what evidence will the fed have to charge you with no distribution chain? I'm a cyclist and a bus commuter so, I'll let the state Supreme Court work out the validity of blood tests that the psychopharmacologists can't agree on the accuracy and validity of( I also feel like they'll need some pretty water tight probable cause to forcibly shove a needle in your arm). But, as far as I'm concerned, I'm set. I think it'll be don't ask, don't tell until the state works it out. And that,realistically, could be a while, but I'm optimistic that, with support from state and local legislators, this distribution problem for the lazy and ignorant can be worked out in such a way that the fed would have to actively challenge the states right to insure the rights of its' people to do anything about it.
Posted by Dasbudda on November 8, 2012 at 1:11 AM · Report this
55
@52: The officer has discretion only to make an arrest or not; to make observations and accuse one of wrongdoing, then order him or her to appear before a judge who, with the input of a jury, will determine guilt.
Posted by Phil M http://https://twitter.com/pmocek on November 8, 2012 at 8:12 AM · Report this
Eastpike 56
@52 My assumption of what will end up happening is you can probably get away with having up to about 2-3 ounces before an officer will have to at least confiscate the bag and/or issue a citation or make an arrest. There's no criminal law in the form of statute yet- so they won't blink unless you have an *obviously* illegal amount. There will be a few cases in the coming years of defense in the form of illegal search since they'd have to have probable cause to weigh the bag.
Posted by Eastpike on November 8, 2012 at 8:47 AM · Report this
John Horstman 57
@51: No, all studies have shown that active THC drops below criminal levels within a few hours i.e. once you're not high (it's the active THC that's making you high). That line you've heard is a lie, a misdirect put out by opponents of legal weed, or persons with a vested interest in semi-legal weed (e.g. owners/operators of medical dispensaries who are really little better than the black-market dealers who rely on prohibition for massive, unregulated profits - I'm not saying this applies to all operators/owners, I'm saying that the owners/operators who oppose legalization are this). They're being intentionally obscure, conflating THC metabolites with active THC, or just straight-up lying about what the studies have shown. Here's The Stranger's article that links the relevant studies: http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archive…
Posted by John Horstman on November 8, 2012 at 8:56 AM · Report this
58
so, as a medicinal cannabis user, how does this change things for me? do i still get to grow my own? can i still have 24 ounces? and another concern, if anyone actually read the whole I-502, all of it, like i did, then, it looks like a lot of people might still be going to jail if you get pulled over and the cop thinks you're high. if you refuse a blood test, you will lose your license for a year. and if found guilty of DUI, the same punishment as driving under the influence of alcohol.
Posted by tinatrbl on November 8, 2012 at 11:27 AM · Report this
59
I think people are thinking in the wrong direction. If possession of a personal amount publicly is no longer illegal, forget distribution. Anyone who deserves they're high school diploma should be able to figure out a low maintainance, low heat "Sea of Green" setup that'll fit in all but the smallest studio apartment and be quite adequate to provide someone with a sizeable personal supply. As long as you are not distributing and never leave home with more than a personal amount, who'll ever be the wiser and what evidence will the fed have to charge you with no distribution chain? I'm a cyclist and a bus commuter so, I'll let the state Supreme Court work out the validity of blood tests that the psychopharmacologists can't agree on the accuracy and validity of( I also feel like they'll need some pretty water tight probable cause to forcibly shove a needle in your arm). But, as far as I'm concerned, I'm set. I think it'll be don't ask, don't tell until the state works it out. And that,realistically, could be a while, but I'm optimistic that, with support from state and local legislators, this distribution problem for the lazy and ignorant can be worked out in such a way that the fed would have to actively challenge the states right to insure the rights of its' people to do anything about it.
Posted by Dasbuddafriend on November 8, 2012 at 3:48 PM · Report this
Dominic Holden 60
@58) See @30.
Posted by Dominic Holden on November 8, 2012 at 4:03 PM · Report this
Will in Seattle 61
Sounds like the best solution would be for the state to permit current Medical Marijuana retailers to sell to the general public (21+) AND to allow former WSLCB stores to do the same.

Both already restrict sales to adults.

Oh, btw, both the UW and WSU have NOT changed their rules on MJ use on campus or in student housing. Not sure about NSCC, SCCC, SSCC, or BCC.
Posted by Will in Seattle http://www.facebook.com/WillSeattle on November 9, 2012 at 12:53 PM · Report this
62
I am curious to know what cannabis will actually cost in the new system. I have heard people who voted against the referendum saying it will cost $40 a gram but I think this highly unlikely.
Posted by frodobaggins on November 17, 2012 at 9:31 AM · Report this
63 Comment Pulled (Spam) Comment Policy
64 Comment Pulled (Spam) Comment Policy
65 Comment Pulled (Spam) Comment Policy
66 Comment Pulled (Spam) Comment Policy
67 Comment Pulled (Spam) Comment Policy
68 Comment Pulled (Spam) Comment Policy
69 Comment Pulled (Spam) Comment Policy
70 Comment Pulled (Spam) Comment Policy
71 Comment Pulled (Spam) Comment Policy
72 Comment Pulled (Spam) Comment Policy
73 Comment Pulled (Spam) Comment Policy
74 Comment Pulled (Spam) Comment Policy
75 Comment Pulled (Spam) Comment Policy
76 Comment Pulled (Spam) Comment Policy
77 Comment Pulled (Spam) Comment Policy
78 Comment Pulled (Spam) Comment Policy
79 Comment Pulled (Spam) Comment Policy
80 Comment Pulled (Spam) Comment Policy
81 Comment Pulled (Spam) Comment Policy
82 Comment Pulled (Spam) Comment Policy
83 Comment Pulled (Spam) Comment Policy
84 Comment Pulled (Spam) Comment Policy
85 Comment Pulled (Spam) Comment Policy
86 Comment Pulled (Spam) Comment Policy
87 Comment Pulled (Spam) Comment Policy
88 Comment Pulled (Spam) Comment Policy

Add a comment

Advertisement
 

Want great deals and a chance to win tickets to the best shows in Seattle? Join The Stranger Presents email list!


All contents © Index Newspapers, LLC
1535 11th Ave (Third Floor), Seattle, WA 98122
Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Takedown Policy