I-502 is not worthy of support or endorsement. The stated goal is to end prohibition, but some provisions in this initiative are the reverse. I-502 provides law enforcement with new DUI statutes to profile suspect drivers, many of whom will prove innocent of impairment - but will be left with no defense under the per se levels to be written into law. Federal preemption and the proposed tax-structure will exacerbate an illegal black market, not deter it. I-502 provides a perfect storm to ramp up the war on marijuana. New Approach Washington sacrifices some of our most vulnerable, and at-risk, segments of the population as political pawns for an over ambitious win at the polls.

The proposed three-tier 25% tax structure will keep street prices for cannabis artificially high. This will do nothing to deter the illegal black market, which will undercut the state price and avoid taxation altogether. The best way to reduce organized crime with marijuana is to make the product less lucrative to potential profiteers.

A legalize, tax, and regulate initiative for a schedule 1 substance has never before been attempted in this state. If I-502 gathers enough signatures, and wins in the 2012 general election, federal preemption will ensue, and New Approach Washington is banking on that action as part of their political strategy. It is their belief, a federal trial over states’ rights will bring the discussion of ending prohibition on cannabis to the national stage. They may be correct in that assessment. Unfortunately, they are willing to use patients and young adults as political fodder to achieve that goal. This presents a moral dilemma for many cannabis advocates.

The only successful anti-prohibition model to reference in our state history is I-61 (“Repeal of the Bone Dry Act”) which Washington voters passed in 1932, a full year prior to the ratification of the 21st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. This is the approach that Sensible Washington models their initiatives on: repeal first, then tax and regulate via the legislature.

The strategic choices are to support the legalize, tax, regulate model as proposed by NAW or the simple repeal model of Sensible Washington, which has historically proven to work against alcohol prohibition. The ethical choices are to end prohibition for all responsible adults (SW), or sacrifice potentially innocent people for perceived political gain. It is up to each individual to decide, hopefully their conclusion will be based in facts and research, and not blind conjecture.

I-502 is a government sting disguised as reform. The proposed law has no chance of surviving a court challenge based upon its requirement that all participants incriminate themselves by registering. The case law on this issue is plentiful and unanimous. This issue is not subject to debate. I'm astounded that so many intelligent well-meaning people are able to ignore this glaring flaw and support the proposed initiative. What’s wrong with a state law that attempts to legalize and regulate cannabis through a system requiring that participants register with the state or be licensed by the state? One federal judge recently called the idea delusional. Confidential records held by state authorities can and will be subpoenaed by federal law enforcement.

In the most recent litigation of the issue records reflecting registration by persons participating in Michigan’s medical marijuana program were subpoenaed by the DEA. Michigan adopted a medical marijuana law which included registration provisions. The law provided confidentiality for those who registered. The DEA subpoenaed those records. The federal judge who heard the case not only upheld the validity of the subpoena, he ridiculed the people who had imagined that a state law could trump the federal law. I-502 is quite specific about this issue. It modifies RCW 69.50.500 to require that the Liquor Control Board cooperate with federal law enforcement agencies. This is the same agency that is given the responsibility to license and regulate cannabis. If that’s not a sting operation, I respectfully await some other explanation.

The 5 ng/ml limit for THC is not even close to comparable to alcohol. For one thing, alcohol is one of the few substances in the world where impairment is directly correlated to a certain level in your system. At 0.08 BAC, every single one of us will be at the same impairment level, regardless of how we reached that level. With THC, your levels can vary greatly, as can your impairment level. An occasional user who has only consumed cannabis a few times will be MUCH more impaired from a single joint, whereas a patient could smoke a couple of joints and still not feel any real "high." That's because patients have worked their way up to an effective dose (much like many pharmaceuticals) and any side effects (i.e. the high that impairs most) are minimal. When you add in the half-life of cannabis and the fact that patients need to medicate regularly, which increases the stored THC levels exponentially, I-502's DUIC law is a recipe for disaster!

This doesn't even touch on the fact that a certain class of drivers (those under 21) are subject to an entirely different set of rules under I-502. Even though medical marijuana is legal for 18+, I-502 sets a 0.00 THC limit for drivers under 21 with no exception for those using cannabis under a doctor's supervision. This means even the most miniscule amount of THC (which can be caused by secondhand smoke) will make you guilty of DUI.

To see the scientific research proving THC levels have ZERO correlation to impairment, please visit Patients Against I-502

This is another piece of legislation written with no practical knowledge of marijuana use. Will there be a "two stick rule" like in the hospital. HOW ABOUT A BILL FOR THE GOVERNMENT TO STOP RUINING PEOPLE LIVES OVER A PLANT?

You guys say, let's get it legalized, then start tweaking the bill. Or that this law is a great step forward. And trust me, I believe that such a law that would support the legalization, or even the decriminalization of this poorly understood substance, is a great thing. However, one thing is wrong with this bill, and it is that it requires a blood test when you get pulled over. Well, let's say that you have gone the entire day without smoking a joint, cause you've been working all day. The day before though, you had a day off of work, and decided to smoke throughout the day. Well, now because you probably lit up 3 to 5 joints the day before, your system still has over 5 nanograms of THC still in it. However, are you still high from the day before? Of course you aren't. The biggest thing we have to realize here is that perfection has to be spot-on for this to work. Am I saying it won't work? At a state level, I'm sure it will, but when other states see California going back and adjusting a law multiple times to fit the concerns of other governmental officials, then they will question whether they want to take that step. Why, you ask? Well, it's all about money and the manpower spent to get it there. Then you have to consider what the federal government is going to do. Are they going to step in? Is a Supreme Court official going to overturn the bill completely? If so, how will that effect the current bill in place?

I am all for the DUI bit. It should be as close to what the law is for booze. If you don't dig that it is, most likely, because you are someone who knows you will be breaking that part of the law. Tough noogies. Let's get it legalized, and then start tweaking the laws.