Articles Tagged: initiative

Real Legalization I-584 in Washington

August 12th, 2013 | By Pirate

After many initiatives to “legalize” in Washington, they finally have a version of “legalization” that has passed the voters approval. Initiative I-502 has according to many “legalized” cannabis in Washington.

The definition of “legalize”

1. (Law) to make lawful or legal

2. (Law) to confirm or validate (something previously unlawful)

legalization , legalisation n
There was a time when cannabis was neither “legal” nor “illegal”.  It just was.   There were no laws authorizing it, there were no laws forbidding it.  This is what freedom is all about, when there are no laws to govern something one way or the other.
For years I held signs, and took part in protests to “legalize cannabis”.   But lately I have came to the conclusion that we do not need any more laws.  Laws are the problem.  What I really seek to to NULLIFY, REPEAL, ELIMINATE stupid laws.
Cannabis prohibition is one of the stupid laws on the books.  Cannabis prohibition gives authorities the right to bust down people’s doors, shoot their dogs, shoot their family, put them in jail, take their property, etc.   Cannabis prohibition has eliminated a common commodity that this continent, this country, this world once held dear because of it’s vast usefulness.
So now people are trying to “legalize” cannabis.  Which basically means to make new laws in place of old laws.
With the passage of I-502, cannabis prohibition was not repealed.   Rather one law replaced another, and people can still get charged with cannabis crimes.   New prohibitions are now in place of old prohibitions.  Old prohibitions are just disguised with new fancy legal lingo.
I’ll demonstrate how cannabis is still prohibited in Washington, as I have in the past via several articles.
If cannabis is legal in Washington, why is it still a schedule one drug?

If cannabis is legal in Washington, why is it still a schedule one drug?

Cannabis is not legal in Washington.  There may be some narrow (very narrow) legal exceptions.   It also seems that law enforcement has backed off a lot from this prohibition.   But that does not mean that cannabis is “legal”.
As people go to HempFest this year, in Washington where they have heard that “Cannabis is legal in Washington”.
I give warning, that cannabis is NOT legal.  So be careful.   Recently several dispensaries learned how “legal” cannabis is in Washington, long after I-502 passed.

Several dispensaries in Western Washington State being raided right now

Now with this new initiative petition in Washington that will be in front of people at Hempfest.  Initiative 584 (I-584), I just got to read it for the first time tonight.   There is a lot of good language in there, but I noticed a similar problem as with I-502.  It does not either repeal the Washington State scheduling of cannabis via the Washington State Unified Controlled Substances Act, nor does it opt out of the Federal Controlled Substances Act.   Even if I-584 passed, cannabis would still technically be illegal on a state and a federal level.

Reference to I-584  (you can print a petition here too)

http://www.reallegalization.org/petition

CERTAINLY I-584 is better than I-502, and people would be doing themselves a favor by passing this in Washington, based on the crappy laws implimented in I-502.   I-584 allows unlicensed home grows. Cannabis is still restricted to those over 21, but penalties are lessened for those under 21.   The tax issue is addressed, as there are no taxes or permitting for home grows, etc.

But I-584 still does not nullify prohibition.

I think this is what would be best.  If a law is stupid, and makes no good come of it.  Then it should be REPEALED, NULLIFIED, ELIMINATED.  Not replaced.

This is my opinion.

Some people say that a state initiative can not remove cannabis from the Controlled Substances Act.  However I have found information that counters that opinion.   I do believe state laws can be nullified, or changed at all levels.

See this article by Steve Kubby:

Federal officials have declared war on California, insisting that any resistance to their Controlled Substance Act is futile.  Like the Red Chinese attempting to crush Tibetan culture and autonomy, our own Federal government is fraudulently asserting its authority to crush California’s vibrant cannabis economy and culture.  However, this is not Tibet, it is America.  Freedom-loving Americans shed blood and sacrificed lives to provide us with a Constitution and Bill of Rights that secures our freedoms and allows us to enjoy the blessing of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

 

Incredibly, the Federal government alleges that under the Commerce and Supremacy clauses of the US Constitution, Federal law supersedes state law.  Furthermore, we find there is an endless stream of legal experts and Constitutional scholars who all mindlessly parrot this nonsense.  Regardless of their legal standing or academic credentials, all these officials, experts and scholars are full of bongwater and do not know what they are talking about.  The notion that the Federal government can use these clauses to impose Federal law on cannabis produced and sold within California’s borders is absolutely false.

 

The government relies upon a bogus Supreme Court decision in Gonzales v. Raich, which found that consuming one’s locally grown marijuana for medical purposes affects the interstate market of marijuana, and hence that the federal government may regulate—and prohibit—such consumption. This argument stems from the landmark New Deal case Wickard v. Filburn, which supposedly held that the government may regulate personal cultivation and consumption of crops, due to the effect of that consumption on interstate commerce, however minute it may be. That may be true, but only under certain circumstances.

 

Lost in all the arguments presented in Gonzales v. Raich was the fact that Roscoe Filburn was a farmer who accepted ‘New Deal’ Federal money to limit how much wheat he grew.  Filburn was caught violating his contract with the Federal government by producing wheat in excess of the amount permitted.  The government then sued Filburn for violating the terms of his contract, Filburn objected on Constitutional grounds and the case went to the Supreme Court.

 

Now for a brief history lesson.  During 1941, producers who officially enrolled in the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, received an average price on the farm of about $1.16 a bushel, as compared with the world market price of 40 cents a bushel. Filburn signed up for the Federal program and was paid to not grow over an allotted amount of wheat.  In July 1940, pursuant to the Agricultural Adjustment Act, Filburn’s 1941 allotment was established at 11.1 acres and a normal yield of 20.1 bushels of wheat per acre. Filburn was given notice of the allotment in July 1940 before the Fall planting of his 1941 crop of wheat, and again in July 1941, before it was harvested. Despite these notices and a signed contract with the Federal government, Filburn planted 23 acres and harvested 239 bushels from his 11.9 acres of excess area.

 

Filburn argued that because the excess wheat was produced for his private consumption on his own farm, it never entered commerce at all, much less interstate commerce, and therefore was not a proper subject of federal regulation under the Commerce Clause.  Unfortunately, Harvard educated attorney Robert Raich failed to point out that once Filburn accepted Federal money and violated the terms of his contract, then and only then, did it become a Federal matter.  Had Raich argued that Wickard v. Filburn only applied in cases where farmers had enrolled in Federal programs, signed contracts and accepted Federal money, the Supreme Court would not have had any basis to render the defective decision that they did.

 

These same ignorant federal officials and legal experts will also tell you that the Tenth Amendment is ignored by the courts and has no real power.  More bongwater.  I call your attention to Bond v. United States in which the Supreme Court ruled this year to unanimously uphold the powers reserved to individuals and states by the Tenth Amendment.  In that decision, all nine justices agreed that the Tenth Amendment means that “State sovereignty is not just an end in itself: ‘Rather, federalism secures to citizens the liberties that derive from the diffusion of sovereign power.’”

 

The Supreme Court further limited the role of the Federal government in their decision by proclaiming:

 

Some of these liberties are of a political character. The federal structure allows local policies “more sensitive to the diverse needs of a heterogeneous society,” permits “innovation and experimentation,” enables greater citizen “involvement in democratic processes,” and makes gov­ernment “more responsive by putting the States in com­petition for a mobile citizenry.” Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U. S. 452, 458 (1991). Federalism secures the freedom of the individual. It allows States to respond, through the enactment of positive law, to the initiative of those who seek a voice in shaping the destiny of their own times without having to rely solely upon the political processes that control a remote central power.

 

References:

http://www.cannabisculture.com/content/2011/10/12/California-Could-Opt-Out-Controlled-Substances-Act-Ballot-Initiative

https://www.facebook.com/notes/steve-kubby/how-california-can-legally-opt-out-of-the-war-on-pot/10150406433440239

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Removal_of_cannabis_from_Schedule_I_of_the_Controlled_Substances_Act

http://xcannabis.com/2011/03/international-treaties-vs-prohibition-of-drugs-and-us-sovereignty/

 

I still say that we lost a great asset in congress for freedom when Ron Paul retired.  We really missed a great opportunity to have a freedom loving American and an honest man as president when we missed our opportunity to elect Ron Paul.

See Ron Paul’s co-sponsorship of HR 2306.  He had been educating about the benefits of ending prohibition for about 40 years (even though he is not a consumer and never has been)

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2011/06/marijuana-bill-officially-introduced-to-congress-by-ron-paul-barney-frank.html

Here is some good tunes to listen to, while thinking about “freedom”.

Mark Knopfler & James Taylor – Sailing to Philadelphia

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OrLdKYRBOEE&list=PL793796DEA2B9E12D

Comparing Initiative 502 to the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937

October 28th, 2012 | By Pirate

In this article I will explain how Washington’s Initiative 502 is similar to the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937.
There are differences, because we are now in a post Controlled Substances Act era, and this initiative is being touted as the initiative that will “legalize marihuana” (yes I spell cannabis as marihuana in this article similar to the way they did in 1937 for the marihuana tax act).
The similarities that I am noting have to do with the tax, and the proposal for a legal/regulated market.  The differences in the two are only related to the post 1970 Controlled Substances Act era.

My proposal in this article is that Initiative 502 is not legalization, it is just a clever way of retaining prohibition at a time when Hempfest is at its all time height of attendee’s, when a group with a shoe-string budget in Washington collected hundreds of thousands of signatures on a mostly volunteer basis to get cannabis legalized in Washington.
On March 18th 2012, sponsor of I-502 Pete Holmes said after a long speech about how he believe in decriminalization of marihuana, that “a people’s initiative (to legalize marihuana) scares him terribly“.

They (the prohibitionists and lawyer profiteers) realized that a people’s initiative passing was a reality and they fought desperately to thwart those efforts.  Pete Holmes, Alison Holcomb, the ACLU and many of the law enforcement officials all publicly denounced the efforts of thousands of volunteers to collect hundreds of thousands of signatures to legalize (remove the prohibitions) from marihuana laws in Washington.  (see  www.sensiblewashington.org)

At the end of my summary I will post the texts of the two law proposals (The Marihuana Tax Act 1937 and Initiative 502).  What’s also interesting to note, is that I-502 is far larger in size/text than the original prohibition proposal The 1937 Marihuana Tax Act.  I am just going to give links to the I-502 initiative because of its enormous size.

Lets start off with a few points.

  •  The Marihuana Tax Act of 1937 was not designed to create a market, despite what the text said.  Rather it was designed to create prohibition of cannabis.  See this article, the intro is a great description regarding how TMTA-1937 created prohibition:  http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/hemp/taxact/mjtaxact.htm
  • The title of the act, and the words in the act appeared to create a taxable and regulated market.  But after the act passed in 1937 very few stamps were issued.  During WWII many stamps were issued to fuel the war efforts.  But after WWII very few were ever issued again.

It is noted:

“Shortly after the 1937 Marihuana Tax Act went into effect on October 1, 1937, the Federal Bureau of Narcotics and Denver City police arrested Moses Baca for possession and Samuel Caldwell for dealing. Baca and Caldwell’s arrest made them the first marijuana convictions under U.S. federal law for not paying the marijuana tax.[19] Judge Foster Symes sentenced Baca to 18 months and Caldwell to four years in Leavenworth Penitentiary for violating the 1937 Marihuana Tax Act.”

If we compare this to Initiative 502, which is something touted by law enforcement and other sponsors as a way to reduce crime in the black market, and to create safer roads in Washington.

As described by the Secretary of State’s office, the measure would “license and regulate marijuana production, distribution, and possession for persons over twenty-one; remove state-law criminal and civil penalties for activities that it authorizes; tax marijuana sales; and earmark marijuana-related revenues.”

Here are the points being debated

  • State law currently requires a prosecutor to prove impairment in court for DUI, after I-502 impairment is not the measurement it is a rather un-scientific blood limit of THC (5nanograms of active THC).  This targets heavy users, specifically patients that are legally recommended by a doctor to use cannabis under Washington state laws
  • The excise taxes are extreme, 25% at each point of the market with local and state taxes on top of that equaling a rough 90% tax on cannabis, thus keeping it in the black market (even if the market was remotely possible under this proposal)
  • All to help alleviate the 10,000 or so possession arrests per year in Washington state.  When many of those arrests will happen anyway since the largest demographic of cannabis consumers are under the age of 21, and many of those arrests will happen anyway because a lot of those arrests are for over one ounce (the allowable limit).
  • The offset of these arrests are the potential for a lot more arrests via the provisions in Sec. 31., Page 46

My summary is.  The two of these law reform proposals have similar goals.  They both looked really good for the community before they were voted in, and were being proposed as something different than what the language contained in them defines.   We know now that the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937 was certainly the gateway to extreme marihuana prohibition.  But what about I-502.  I propose that this is also a gateway to more prohibition.  It does not at all in anyway say “legalization” to me.   In fact where I am in California anyone over the age of 18 can possess an ounce of marihuana without committing a crime, and there were no new and restrictive driving provisions installed when SB 1449 was passed, and there is no more mayhem on the roads than before.  There are over a dozen other states that have decriminalized in the same or similar ways.

I-502’s proposal for state liquor board regulated cannabis stores, and cooperation with the federal government including FBI fingerprints and background check for cannabis distributors is a sure sign that there will be no legal market, and this proposal for a ‘legal market’ will crash and burn just like SB 5073.

One more thing to note is that Washington has sufficient driving regulations to protect the roads against impaired driving.  Both DUI and Reckless Driving laws.
With Reckless driving the officer does not need to prove impairment, but only needs a visual observation that a person is driving Recklessly to issue penalties and possibly arrest.  The penalties of Reckless Driving rival and in some way are even stricter than DUI.

RCW 46.61.502: Driving under the influence

RCW 46.61.500: Reckless driving

There are also many other laws that work similarly such as

RCW 46.61.5249: Negligent driving

Washington didn’t need more restrictions on driving for this initiative to pass.  It just needed to be clear when educating about current laws regarding driving and cannabis.

More references:

Comparing Initiative 502 to the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937

Continue reading »

Independent Review of Washington’s I-502 by state Libertarians

August 22nd, 2012 | By Pirate

I typically do not usually do a full on copy and paste of someone else’s material.
But this material is of the best analysis that I have read about I-502, and it is not written by cannabis activists, it is written by those who truly care about liberty, the Libertarian Party of Washington.

I align myself with Libertarian beliefs, and this review of the initiative speaks clearly to the concerns that I have which has led me to reject the initiative.

http://www.libertarianleadership.org/2012/08/21/an-independent-review-of-washington-states-i-502/

 

I showed up to Hempfest on Saturday morning and the first thing that struck me as odd, were all of the “No on I-502” signs, t-shirts, and buttons. No on I-502

Wait a minute…isn’t I-502 the marijuana legalization bill set to be voted on in November.

Isn’t this the same bill that is being promoted by many leaders within the marijuana legalization movement?

Something wasn’t right. Fortunately for me, the Libertarian Party of Washington* booth was located right next to a “No on I-502” friendly booth. At the booth, a young man and woman named Adam and Katie proceeded to tell me everything that was wrong with the bill. I was floored by what I was told. But instead of immediately switching my view on I-502, I decided to do some research of my own. I acquired the entire 66 page bill and this is what I found hidden inside of it…

I-502

Driving Under the Influence of Marijuana

I-502 will create new criminal penalties for medical marijuana users who drive, through a new and intrusive per se DUID (driving under the influence of drugs) law. I-502 institutes a new unreasonable legal limit on blood THC levels for marijuana users. Active THC from marijuana stays in a person’s blood days and even weeks after the marijuana has been ingested. Inactive THC stays in the body for much longer.

“Sec. 31.1 Any person who operates a motor vehicle within this state is deemed to have given consent…to a test or tests of his or her breath or blood for the purpose of determining the…THC concentration…”

“Sec. 31.2 The test or tests of breath shall be administered at the direction of a law enforcement officer having reasonable grounds to believe the person to have been driving or in actual physical control of a motor vehicle within this state while under the influence…of any drug.”

“Sec. 31.2 (i) The driver is age twenty-one or over and the test indicates…that the THC concentration of the driver’s blood is 5.00 or more;”

“Sec. 31.2 (ii) The driver is under the age twenty-one and the test indicates…that the THC concentration of the driver’s blood is above 0.00;”

That sounds reasonable right? People shouldn’t be driving under the influence of drugs.  Well, it would be reasonable if there were scientific proof of impairment with a blood THC level of 5ng/ml. The facts are…

“It is not possible to conclude anything about a driver’s impairment on the basis of his/her plasma concentrations” –U.S. Department of Transportation “Marijuana and Actual Driving Performance: Effects of THC on Driving Performance”

and…

“THC may be present in blood for a period of days after past use, long after any performance impairing effects have worn off” –Armentano, P. “Cannabis and Driving: A Scientific and Rational Review”

I see this provision to be unrealistic and hurtful to the medical marijuana community. It also implements a zero-tolerance policy for any medical marijuana patient between the ages of 18-21, even when they have a recommendation from their physician to use medical marijuana. This provision would be the same as if you had a glass of wine or beer at dinner, then was arrested and charged with a DUI the next day.

This is the most glaring problem with this initiative, although there are others…

I-502 gives the report of the police officer status as actual evidence to be used to press charges against the patient.

“Sec. 31.8 (b) The sworn report or report under a declaration authorized by RCW 9A.72.085 submitted by a law enforcement officer is prima facie evidence that the officer had reasonable grounds to believe the person had been driving…while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or drugs…”

I am not going to go into the new FBI background checks, or the new restrictions on medical marijuana dispensaries that this initiative adds, although they are important.

Unfortunately, according to the sponsors of I-502, they are aware of the lack of scientific evidence of impairment that coincides with the use of marijuana, as well as the recent studies that have shown that traffic fatalities drop by an average of 9%-13% in states that have adopted medical marijuana friendly laws.

A driving under the influence of drugs charge will:

Stay on your driving record forever.

Severely impair your ability to get a job.

Cost you your drivers’ license for up to a year.

Get you a seat in drug & alcohol classes.

Raise your car insurance rates.

Cost you attorney fees.

So, why have the sponsors of I-502 added these ridiculous provisions to the initiative? They argued that their polling data from Proposition 19 in California showed that there was a large group of uninformed voters who would not vote for I-502 unless it included new penalties for driving under the influence of marijuana.

Uniformed voters? So, instead of trying to educate people on the truth of this issue, they will instead punish peaceful marijuana users?

Wow.

As leaders, we cannot sacrifice principles for political expedience, especially when it will do harm to the very people who have trusted us to fight on their behalf. I would ask that the current leaders supporting I-502 take a second look and oppose this hurtful piece of legislation. The pro-marijuana bills that are going to be on the ballot in Colorado and Oregon in November will have to lead the way for the marijuana legalization movement. These bills do not have DUID provisions.

As a Libertarian, I cannot, under good conscience, support any piece of legislation that violates our natural rights as humans. Whether you agree with the use of marijuana or not, you should agree that adults have the right to choose what they put in their own body without influence, force, and fraud perpetrated by government.

I-502 will cause more harm than good to peaceful marijuana users. I urge you to vote No on I-502! But don’t take my word for it. Read the bill here and watch the debate below.
C. Michael PickensC. Michael Pickens is the Washington State Director for the Gary Johnson 2012 Campaign. He is also the author of the new book, “Libertarian Leadership: Planting the Seed for a Libertarian Future.” Michael can be reached at cmichaelpickens@gmail.com

*The Libertarian Party of Washington did not endorse I-502

Don Skakie Speaking at Hempfest 2012 about I-514

August 18th, 2012 | By Pirate

 

Initiative 514 to the Legislature needs 241,153 valid signatures by December 31 2012 for consideration by the Legislature in the January 2013 legislative session. It could then be accepted as written and made law immediately, or would more likely appear on the November 6 2013 ballot for a vote by the People either with or without an alternative written by the Legislature.

You can read the Full Text of I-514 as it appears in the public record on the Washington Secretary of States website here: http://www.sos.wa.gov/_assets/elections/initiatives/FinalText_248.pdf

http://www.cannabischildprotectionact.org/i-514

http://www.hempfest.org/

Divisions emerge over pro-pot initiative at Seattle Hempfest

““I’m actually sad that Hempfest isn’t embracing this as sort of a pinnacle of the work that they’ve been doing for so long,” said Alison Holcomb, campaign director for the I-502 campaign. “There have been so many people who have worked literally for decades to have a chance to begin to roll back marijuana prohibition … and this is the year that we can finally break through that wall.””

THEN WHY DIDN’T YOU ALISON OR THE ACLU EVER SUPPORT ANY ** REAL ** LEGALIZATION INITIATIVES BEFORE THIS SHITTY I-502?   You don’t care about legalization, you care about making money from defending people against criminal charges.  Alison Holcomb, you are such a lawyer, and that is NOT meant to be a compliment!

Protecting children from the cannabis/marijuana economy I-1215

March 15th, 2012 | By Pirate

Relating to – Protecting children from the cannabis/marijuana economy I-1215

More info @

http://yeson1215.org/

Some things to note.   This initiative is IMHO from a first time read, a good thing over all.  A bit of a compromise in some areas.  Like the 18-21 issue.   But I think it is responsibly handled when addressed in favor of use under parental guidance in the case of medical or spiritual use.  That is very important.

400 sq. ft. garden..  That is nice little garden.   It would be enough for my personal needs.   As long as it doesn’t affect medical limits and such.    I don’t think hemp was addressed enough, but I would like to grow 20 acres of seed hemp at any time of year.

Some of the good aspects that I pulled from this from my first gaze on it.


(j) From the peer pressure to consume cannabis/marijuana in public places by making it a civil infraction for those under twenty-one years of age to consume cannabis/marijuana or be under the influence of cannabis/marijuana in a public place, unless in the presence of their parent(s) or guardian(s);
(k) By allowing for the medicinal or spiritual use of cannabis/marijuana by minors with the approval of the minor’s parent or legal guardian;

(11) Subsections (6), (7), and (10)(a) of this section do not apply to marijuana given or permitted to be given to a person under the age of twenty-one years by a parent or guardian and consumed in the presence of the parent or guardian.
(12) Subsections (6), (7), and (10)(a) of this section do not apply to marijuana given for medicinal purposes to a person under the age of twenty-one years by a physician, practitioner, or dentist.
(13) Subsections (6), (7), and (10)(a) of this section do not apply to marijuana given to a person under the age of twenty-one years when such marijuana is being used in connection with religious services with the consent of a parent or guardian.
(14)(a) Unless otherwise authorized by the state it is unlawful for a person to produce cannabis except in compliance with the following requirements:
(1) The person is twenty-one years of age or older;
(2) The total square footage of the combined plant canopy of all cannabis garden(s) maintained by the person does not exceed four hundred square feet in size;

These are not all ideal situations, but way more responsible than what I-502 is proposing!

There are some regulations in place that again are not the most favorable to the 18-21 crowd, and certainly no change for minors.

“(b) It is unlawful for a person under the age of twenty-one years to be in a public place, or to be in a motor vehicle in a public place, while exhibiting the effects of having consumed marijuana.  For purposes of this subsection, exhibiting the effects of having consumed marijuana means that a person has the odor of marijuana on his or her breath and either:  “

If we are going to be writing regulations, even if I don’t agree with it ideally.  I do think making these laws less ambiguous helps law enforcement focus their efforts on real crimes and real needs of the community.

My over all thought on the 18-21 year old issue, is that if a person is old enough to fight and die for his/her country, they should have the freedom to put whatever they want in their own bodies, in a responsible way.

Are there things in this initiative that I do not agree with?  Yes.
Do I see any thing major that sticks out that would prevent me from signing this initiative if given the chance?   I would actually read it one more time before answering that.   But over all I think this is a good forward type step in a positive direction for real law reform.

I-1215 is not in total agreement with my beliefs, but I see how some compromises need to be made, even if only on the short term.
I think it is being proven every day that cannabis people are thoughtful, productive, creative, and contributors to those things that are good in our society.   So I can’t imagine introducing any new penalties, we just need to roll back the penalties.

I liked the following in this initiative-
“-(p) By making it a crime for an employee or other agent of the State of Washington to assist the Federal Government in prosecuting federal cannabis/marijuana offenses that are not also violations under the laws of Washington State while permitting the transmission of aggregate data for reporting purposes.-“

I wouldn’t go as far as to call it “legalization”.  But this is much much better than I-502!
It makes logical sense, as everything ads up.  I makes common sense, because one section is supported by another.
It has some scientific ideology that while would appeal to a broader base, it doesn’t seem right about the 18-21 thing.
But I feel the same way about alcohol and tobacco as well.   If 18 is the age you are a man/woman..  If that is the day you can serve and die for your country.  Then that be the year!

But I don’t live in Washington right now, nor do I have anything better written up myself.  It does address real needs, and makes progress towards addressing those needs.

Please read it yourself.  Post your thoughts.  Correct me if Im wrong.  Im about to re-read it again right now.

I do like it is about 1/3 of the size of the I-502 initiative.  That thing is huge!  This one is so straight to the point!

I like what I’ll call the preamble or lecture in the beginning of the initiative.  Explaining sound reason!

I also am in favor of I-1208 in WA

CA AB 2552 – DUI provisions becoming a major trend

March 12th, 2012 | By Pirate

Less than a month ago (Feb 17th) NORML endorsed I-502 officially.
Shortly after that two more states jumped on the bandwagon in a away.
These two states jumping on the bandwagon are only jumping on to the DUID limits on cannabis bandwagon.

Colorado =  February 27th 2012  Senate Bill 117

California = March 10th 2012   AB 2552

NORML Endorses I-502
http://blog.norml.org/2012/02/17/endorsed-norml-supports-marijuana-legalization-initiative-in-washington-state/

Is Initiative 502 in Washington REALLY legalizing marijuana? – Logical Fallacy

March 8th, 2012 | By Pirate

There are 12 states already that have decriminalized marijuana to some extent.
This means you don’t get a criminal record, you don’t go to jail, and you don’t get blood drawn for possessing less than a certain amount, an ounce is pretty standard in most of these states.
I-502 offers NEW PENALTIES. Which is not what legalization should look like.

Oregon
North Carolina
Alaska
Colorado
California
Massachusetts
Maine
Ohio
Nevada
New York
Nebraska
Mississippi

http://www.drugpossessionlaws.com/states-marijuana-decriminalized/

Credit for the picture of US Attorney John McKay due to NPR: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=134608083

Reply to NORML Live 2nd hour February 24th 2012 – Those who would trade liberty for security

February 28th, 2012 | By Pirate

NORML Live 2nd hour February 24th 2012 – Reverend Ryan’s Response
I have had a lot of conversations with NORML and the ACLU in Washington about Initiative 502, and the negative provisions in the initiative.   I detail my opposition to the initiative


NORML Live 2nd hour February 24th 2012 – Those… by xcannabis
Part 2 of my reply (poor audio quality):

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xp3s3a_reply-to-norml-live-2nd-hour-february-24th-2012-those-who-would-trade-liberty-for-security_lifestyle

http://stash.norml.org

More info:
I502 Presentation Seattle Channel – Washington Legalization Initiative – or is it?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0GQpdcCQRuQ&list=UUlTFj4eJRwSaeswztDzCyQg&index=2&feature=plcp

Reply about I-502 and probable cause
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Alo2tsMS6fk&list=UUlTFj4eJRwSaeswztDzCyQg&index=1&feature=plcp

Flash backs of Prop19 in the conversation below. Just when I think Im done with this kind of drama!

http://www.facebook.com/notes/friar-ryan/reverend-ryan-is-flaky-because-he-gave-up-weed-for-jesus-pastor-ray-christl/10150556445446863

http://www.facebook.com/notes/friar-ryan/reverend-ryan-is-flaky-because-he-gave-up-weed-for-jesus-pastor-ray-christl/10150556445446863

[iframe src=”http://www.facebook.com/notes/friar-ryan/reverend-ryan-is-flaky-because-he-gave-up-weed-for-jesus-pastor-ray-christl/10150556445446863″ width=”500″ height=”100″]

Three initiatives, letter of cooperation for California legalization 2012

February 27th, 2012 | By Pirate

In this statement of unity for the 2012 legalization campaign for California, we the people come together to fight prohibition.

There are competing initiatives, yet they are all in agreement.

I am in full agreement with this.  Long before this letter was published, I recorded a video blog about this.


And while I have supported every attempted legalization effort in the past 4 years (and never have opposed a legalization initiative before this), I have shunned the attempt to pass I-502 in Washington which gives very little freedom, and offers new penalties that didn’t previously exist.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dEFyEVoa-Cw   <this was my video from last year (fall 2011)

I was very hopeful that Washington was going to have legal cannabis by now, we have been working hard on it.

But unfortunately the ACLU has not back any one elses efforts to do this.   Neither have other sponsors of I-502.

When Sensible Washington needed their support the most, they turned a blind eye.

This is one of I-502 main endorsers, Pete Holmes in March 2011 talking smack on other efforts to legalize in Washington.

More on that rejection of the other legalization initiatives:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-0gumCNIFWU&feature=plcp&context=C3694f96UDOEgsToPDskKnVzZX1ZDXsXmkUtCijyvw

Why reject the best and most clearcut way of legalizing, and then propose something that mostly just offers strict penalties?

Portugal legalized in a similar way as Sensible Washington proposed.  So we know its a viable plan.
But some of these lawyer groups just did not want to let go of prohibition it seems.

Well I have a lot more hope for California.  I’ve been desperate to see this kind of change, since I was first arrested for cannabis possession some 17 years ago.

I never want to see my children locked up for possessing a God given plant!

Initiative 502 in Washington is getting personal – Pseudo Legalization or Pseudo Prohibition?

February 25th, 2012 | By Pirate

I have had a lot of conversations with NORML and the ACLU in Washington about Initiative 502, and the negative provisions in the initiative.   I detail my opposition to the initiative, and I call out one of the agitators on the pro-I502 side and point out how she is making a mountain out of a mole hill.

I sent this gal a free shirt in 2010, and I have stood up for her in Facebook arguments, but she now says that I have always been mean to her.
I pointed out where she is wrong.  She has censored me about I502, and we had a disagreement, but every other conversation we got a long just fine.

In the end of this, I thank NORML for what they do, by sending a monthly donation to NORML of $4.20