Washington Voters - NO on I-502

Discussion in 'Marijuana Legalization' started by Husky42, Nov 22, 2011.

  1. Washington State has a legalization measure getting rammed through and looking at support Marijuana will be "legal" in 2012.

    Cool right?

    Not so much.

    I-502 is a wolf in sheeps clothing. It in many ways is going to face the same opposition of Prop 90 and it should.

    I-502 puts into place the same ridiculous ability to duid like the do in AZ except the threshold will be 5ng n terms of threshold used to indicate impairment.. um impairment? I thing my urinei s probly CONSTANTLY far above the 5ng per mL limit that they are going to use to DRUG TEST drivers... so if you smoked marijuana a week ago..or 24 hours ago a cop would be able to arrest you for DUI.

    This alone should be enough of reason to not vote for I-502.

    There is corporate money backing I-502, police are behind it. It will put severe controls on cannabis in such a way any freedom we experience with it now (i know i know) will be removed.

    It replaces the medical industry with a state run shit house. Poor allowances etc.

    Its not a "start" its simply bullshit.

    No on I-502

    And yes I know some are going to come in here and be like, your a grower of course you do not support this... well yes I grow. For myself only and i have no real interest in stopping legalization. I-502 is shit however and I will not be supporting it.
  2. Are they high? They must be high? Right? Nahh. Or? Maybe? Wait...,no thats just me. Ok anyways, sounds like a good way for corporations to make money and throw people in jail. Sounds like a step backwards
  3. I too strongly disagree with I-502. I however am from a long line of non-voters. so to cut to the point, I want to vote NO for I-502. so when will this be available to vote on? I believe it to be in Nov. of 2012? is this correct?
  4. This 5 ng is for THC not THC-COOH which is what urine tests look for. 5 ng active THC would cause impairment for most naive users but significant impairment would be unlikely for heavy users. I don't agree with the rule, but this would simply discriminate against heavy users-which most people want. They do not care that you are not actually impaired but that you are a heavy user and "could be" impaired.

    You seem to forget that this bill sets up a for profit government agency and disallows for personal production. I'm sure you dont like that with the anti-government sentiment that you are likely to harbor. Passing any legalization law will not reduce freedoms associated with Cannabis. It would simply not change some aspects of what is currently illegal (in this case personal cultivation).

    Don't forget that this bill allows for personal cultivation for medical card holders. They will have the black market advantage since they will be the only non-state producers. I think this is a way to pander to sick people by offering to subsidize their illness with sales of the "medicine" they produce. How many pain patients out there are producing their own morphine with a legal license (about the same difficulty as a good Cannabis product)?

    Anyways, I would vote for this thing even though it wouldn't be good for me in the short run and I do not like some aspects. Unlike most people, I am practical and will accept movement in the right direction even if it is not going to set me up as pretty as I would like. Also, I don't live in Washington. Too many young Cannabis consumers have become anti-government while the elders heading the legalization movement are more socialistic. I don't care, but people need to be open about what the system will favor. In this case, the system would favor commercial and government interests more than it would favor consumer interests because it does not empower consumers. This bill forces "non-medical" users to buy from the government and the commercial interests behind it. It would be like banning home production of tomatoes; the commercial tomato producers would get maybe 5-10% more sales than if it were legal to for consumers to grow their own.

    I heard about this and assumed I would immediately see opposition without any real depth to it. We will see lots of knee-jerk ignoramuses using loaded language- mostly anti-government rhetoric. I don't mind the free market stuff, but I do require reasonable discourse and not loaded rhetoric.
  5. Id like to read the full text of this bill, but I cant seem to find it....

    I know a lot of people that are behind this one, But I didnt know about the DUI portion of it....
  6. That link wont work for me....
  7. Need a non-growers perspective. Anyone who is currently profiting from the system that is currently in place cannot be trusted IMO. I will point you to the shameful acts of the people involved in stopping the CA. legislation in 2010. Legalization is majorly important for the rest of the nation to finally wake up and follow suit. Seems like BongStar put the DUI aspect of the bill into a more clear perspective than the OP.
  8. #9 Husky42, Jan 8, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 8, 2012

    Just because I grow does not mean my opinion is invalid. I'm a medi patient, in fact as a patient and grower I "should" be jumping all over this law..

    My basic issue comes from the ability/authority to detain and blood test.

    Now I read a little bit more into I-502 and intially my post may have been a knee-jerk reaction.

    The threshold while seemingly low cannot be tested fro until a FST has been failed. If you are sober.. you should not fail a FST regardless so essentially this provision protects heavy users to an extent. Also IF I-502 passes there is already a plan to pen in protection for medical ie exemption unless actual intoxication can be proven.

    I'm finding that while I-502 is not perfect, we cannot wait for the perfect bill. This one is good enough to pass, its progression and law is an evolving thing.

    I've since posting this article re-evaluated my thoughts.. I do not think cops are going to be pulling over pot heads, detaining them and taking them to the station, having a doctor or nurse then do the blood work.. i mean.. what in gods earth would they be detaining you for if you pass a FST.

    I still am on the fence overall, as a Medical patient there is far too much at risk for me in this bill to give it my full support.

    Supporting it blindly is more ignorant then saying "oh well there are issues but it should pass"

    Prop 19 was a failure because it was a TERRIBLE prop. I would not have voted for it. Non patients really need to understand what may be good for you, is not good for us and we will fight you tooth and nail if you try to take away what we already have.
  9. Seriously not gonna vote for it b/c of DUID, unless your ripped behind the wheel why would they waste 20 or 30$ on a drug test for every person they pull over? Guess you'd rather people go to jail for smoking in their own apt.
  10. If the bill is past and the DUID tests cause problems, won't people make a big enough stink about it to have it changed? You can't expect the transition into legalization to be a smooth one.

    And besides the DUID tests, what other reasons should we vote no? I know it's late but maybe if I bump this post I'll get some response.

  11. Where does it state pacificly that this bill allows for personal cultivation for medical card holders? i cant seem to find it anywhere
  12. Also, remember that this is a BLOOD test, not a urine test. Active THC only stays in your blood for 4-8 hours.

    Just because some of us know alcoholics that drive drunk all the time, or even claim that they drive better drunk, doesn't mean that we should repeal drunk driving laws.

    Don't drive high, and you won't get in trouble. At least this law gives a definite number to be used instead of the current system, where if a cop even claims to smell weed on you a DUI can be issued.
  13. It's always the people who can legally smoke weed who are against legalizing it for everyone else, smh
  14. Doesn't everyone have to take piss test NOW if they're suspected of DUI???

    How would 502 make this worse?

    Wouldn't a blood test be preferred since MJ stays in the blood only 4-8 hours?

  15. where are you getting your facts? I mean I'm not saying any of it isn't true, I just haven't heard it before. Do they actually give road side piss tests? and is it true that THC lasts longer in urine than blood?
  16. My biggest problem with this thread is that people seem to think driving is a right. Its actually a privilege

  17. According to the latest study, funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse, active THC (not THC-carboxy) can stay in your system for 30 days. You can only test for active THC in blood. You can't do either test on the road side.

    If they decide to test you, they are required by law to impound your vehicle and transport you to a hospital for testing. If you are a regular cannabis user or a patient, you will almost certainly be over the 5 ng/ml limit. Most of the time you will be at more than twice the legal limit. They will initiate even tougher penalties for that, just like they have for alcohol.

    Wonder where this whole per se DUID bullshit is coming from? It's the newest strategy by the White House and the Drug Czar to go after cannabis users and expand the "war on drugs". If you don't believe me, just check out this link which will absolutely confirm what their plan is for us. A DUID will cost you $10,000-$20,000 to defend in Washington State. With a per se limit, you cannot win in court.

    The Drug Czar's Plan to increase DUIDs

    Isn't it interesting that the Washington initiative to "legalize" cannabis includes the Drug Czar's latest policy to attack cannabis users? You think this is just a coincidence? And where did the Drug Czar come from? He's the former Seattle Police Chief and he worked regularly with the former Federal Prosecutor, John McKay.....a key sponsor of I-502.

    I take care of an 18 year old osteosarcoma (bone cancer) patient. He's already had four ribs replace with titanium ribs. He will have two choices under I-502. He can quit using Rick Simpson oil to help fight his cancer or he can quit driving. Since he's under 21 he can have zero THC in his blood and he will always test at 140 ng/ml or above.....though he is definitely not impaired.

    Please don't get suckered in by this law. This NOT "legalization". It does not remove one criminal penalty for growing or possessing marijuana from the Washington State law....none. It does, however, add four new prohibitions, all related to driving while impaired.

    The only way to actually legalize marijuana is to remove the laws that make marijuana illegal under the state law. The state legislature has the legal right, even under Federal law, to do that. (Title 21 USC Section 903)

    Steve Sarich
    NO On I-502 Committee

  18. It doesn't! The sponsors of the bill are lying. What they are saying is that the iniiative doesn't change any of the wording of the current medical cannabis law. They are right, as far as they go, but they are lying by omission. It doesn't have to change the current law! All new laws preempt older laws.

    I believe that there will be no growing for ANYONE under I-502. There are NO protections built into the bill. If I-502 passes it will be the end of medical marijuana in the State of Washington. John McKay, a sponsor of I-502, has actually been using "the end of medical marijuana in Washington" as a selling point to police agencies to get their support for I-502!

  19. Is that a bigger problem for you than having non-impaired patients being jailed for DUID when they are in no way impaired? How would you like to get a DUID, that you can't beat in court, because you smoked a joint two days ago and the THC is still in your blood?

Share This Page