-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Seattle-GAF!
- Thread starter swoon
- Start date
nVidiot_Whore
Banned
Those businesses are well suited for getting a license and continuing to operate. I know what you are getting at, but there's no current shortage of "competition".. there are 3 dispensaries practically next door to each other down the street from me.. another dozen within 2 miles...
They say the tax is too high, and that the DUID stuff is super dangerous.. could get pot smokers arrested who aren't under the influence, etc.
Where does one get one of these signs? I'll donate my front yard to 74. I live literally across the street from an LDS church, so my area could use it.
i'll be honest, i dont know too much of the details about this initiative. what's the DUID stuff? driving under the influence?
i know a few stoner kids who are actually against legalization. i cant believe it. seems like its clearly the right thing to do. i assume the initiative isn't perfect.. maybe the taxes are too high for some peoples taste or whatever, but there's time to work that stuff out in the future. we need to move forward now. this would be a big step.
i know a few stoner kids who are actually against legalization. i cant believe it. seems like its clearly the right thing to do. i assume the initiative isn't perfect.. maybe the taxes are too high for some peoples taste or whatever, but there's time to work that stuff out in the future. we need to move forward now. this would be a big step.
freenudemacusers
Member
legalize it
420forlife
420forlife
distantmantra
Member
I bought it from Washington United for Marriage's website. I think it was ~$17 with shipping, but just rounded up to $25 for donation.
distantmantra
Member
The initiative would allow the cops to pull people over for driving under the influence of marijuana much like they can with alcohol. It also would not allow people to grow their own.
link
haven't seen anyone giving away free ones, but if i see some of my friends volunteering for it i'll ask.
fine with the bolded. the second part stinks, but again, its not nearly enough to make me even think about not voting for this.
nVidiot_Whore
Banned
Driving with pot in your bloodstream. One of the major concerns being that the new law doesn't even say anything about impairment.
I'm not so worried about the SPD or surrounding cities that follow their lead, but I could imagine some other police department using the law to go after people who aren't even driving "high."
Not saying I am voting "No".. just that the dispensary I go to at least made me second guess it.. they are good people too.. I don't go to or like going to the "Stoner" dispensaries. I have a real medical condition that is actually helped by the stuff.. lol.
nVidiot_Whore
Banned
Not correct at all.
Current law already allows that.
In fact, current law states they have to have evidence someone is impaired.
The issue people have with the new law is that it removes that.. and makes it all based on THC in the bloodstream.. which could be there without any impairment.
distantmantra
Member
The signs are currently backordered apparently. That's pretty dumb on their part with less than two months before the election.
nVidiot_Whore
Banned
Blood test.
Refusing a breathalizer is an instant trip back to the station for a... blood test.
Not sure on the specifics.
And the "Fear" could be totally unwarranted.. but it is fairly odd that they didn't include impairment in the law.
"Doctors' reports from Colorado and Washington State guarantee I-502 will wrongfully convict unimpaired drivers, particularly medical marijuana patients. "
"Regrettably, I-502 contains a law called per se Driving Under the Influence of Cannabis, or per se DUIC, that traps innocent drivers including medical cannabis patients."
"Currently, the crime requires the state prove impairment. But under I-502, the crime becomes a blood test. Alcohol is an unusual drug because blood and breath levels correlate with impairment. There is no equivalent test for cannabis. Currently, law enforcement proves impairment by field sobriety testing using the laboratory to support the prosecution. This will change with I-502 when having the wrong THC level becomes the crime."
from the stranger.
http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/ar...n-perspective-i-502-betrays-medical-marijuana
hmmm.
"Regrettably, I-502 contains a law called per se Driving Under the Influence of Cannabis, or per se DUIC, that traps innocent drivers including medical cannabis patients."
"Currently, the crime requires the state prove impairment. But under I-502, the crime becomes a blood test. Alcohol is an unusual drug because blood and breath levels correlate with impairment. There is no equivalent test for cannabis. Currently, law enforcement proves impairment by field sobriety testing using the laboratory to support the prosecution. This will change with I-502 when having the wrong THC level becomes the crime."
from the stranger.
http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/ar...n-perspective-i-502-betrays-medical-marijuana
hmmm.
ah was never sure of the specifics of the breathalizer thing, but i guess with alcohol that it might potentially be enough time for it to drop. guess that probably wouldn't be the case with pot, though it depends upon the specifics of the test i guess.
nVidiot_Whore
Banned
Yup.
Beyond that, I think it's too restrictive myself.. requiring a business license, the 1 oz. limit, 25% tax at all levels..
I'm all for regulation and even decently high taxation, but it's hard to say what or how much pot would even be available with this law.. where will it be sold and how?
Right now the dispensaries are like pot heaven.. never liked how they were done via "medical" legislation that is partially BS, but they are what full legalization should be IMO.
Private "club" like sellers.. safe.. hard to steal from... regulated entry, product grown by the same "customers", etc. It just works really well for pot sales...
I don't want to be buying pot at the corner with really limited availability and extremely high prices. If the price goes too high it will just drive tons of sales back underground to the black market.
Beyond that, I think it's too restrictive myself.. requiring a business license, the 1 oz. limit, 25% tax at all levels..
I'm all for regulation and even decently high taxation, but it's hard to say what or how much pot would even be available with this law.. where will it be sold and how?
Right now the dispensaries are like pot heaven.. never liked how they were done via "medical" legislation that is partially BS, but they are what full legalization should be IMO.
Private "club" like sellers.. safe.. hard to steal from... regulated entry, product grown by the same "customers", etc. It just works really well for pot sales...
I don't want to be buying pot at the corner with really limited availability and extremely high prices. If the price goes too high it will just drive tons of sales back underground to the black market.
distantmantra
Member
I can understand your problems with taxation and the 1 oz limit, but what is wrong with requiring a business license?
nVidiot_Whore
Banned
I'm just concerned about how the process is going to work and what affect it will have. Growers right now are "grass roots" types (pun intended) and I'm just unsure what affect that will have on the market. Same with the dispensaries.. these aren't big business types running them.. they aren't some store looking for another avenue of profit, etc.
You can't legally grow it yourself even in small amounts either.
I currently can. I can also currently legally posses more than an ounce... I can legally do a lot of things this law prohibits... and it will dramatically change how I legally obtain my pot, and while I can't predict it.. it seems like it will change it in a negative way.
edit: Also $1,000 yearly fee IS really steep.. LOTS of pot sold right now is grown at operations where $1,000 a year would be a significant percentage of their revenue.. adding yet another tax.. then all of that pot they even sell wholesale would be taxed...
Basically going to likely cause growing to be done only on large scales.. lower quality.. bigger business interests, etc.
but the bottom line is still that this will legalize up to an ounce for all adults. don't tell me that you've got a medical issue that requires more than an ounce of weed a day lol. an ounce is a totally reasonable amount.
i understand your reservations. just think about the big picture. think about all of the adults out there who legally can't smoke pot at all in this country, and how much bullshit that is. this is the first step to stopping that, even if it might change YOUR personal medical marijuana use. this is the first step. we can iron out the details later.. voting against this initiative would just be wrong IMO.
what is it with the puns? the other day we were driving past some dispensaries and they have the worst fucking pun names. they need a clause in the law that forbids terrible fucking pun names
nVidiot_Whore
Banned
While effectively making it illegal for me to drive. I'm a regular smoker who NEVER drives after smoking.. I only smoke after my "day is done" and I live somewhere that I can walk to a grocery, restaurants, etc. Doesn't matter.. my blood will still EASILY have as much THC as it takes under this law to charge me with essentially a DUI. I've never caused an accident in my life, I'm 34 years old, don't even speed.. haven't had a ticket for anything in a decade. But I'd be a perma-DUI driver under this law.
So now for some reason I can't buy a few weeks supply? And beyond that.. it would be a FELONY for me to do so, how is that "legalized" again?
I am seeing the big picture.. if people are voting for this law based on it being "legalization" then why are the details the way they are?
Because the law was supported by people who don't really want "prohibition" ended.. they are making pot semi-legal on purpose so they can control and limit it in ways that I don't personally agree with.
A pamphlet I just got has a quote from one of the main supporters of the bill.
It's from the Seattle Times:
http://seattletimes.com/html/opinion/2012804422_guest05mckay.html?syndication=rss
Just the first line:
There's a lot more too it.. they know pot is already semi-legal in places like Seattle where the police don't do much at all about it (as directed by their superiors).. they pretty much know most adults who WANT to smoke pot are already smoking pot.. and they want to do as much as they can to limit what these people do, tax them, and put them in jail.
distantmantra
Member
It should be taxed, I don't see the problem with that. Take it out of the gray zone, make it legal and tax it just like any other vice.
Not trying to start a fight, I just can't tell if you're for or against the taxation of marijuana.
Not trying to start a fight, I just can't tell if you're for or against the taxation of marijuana.
nVidiot_Whore
Banned
I don't disagree. Currently being charged sales tax on my purchases.
25% tax at wholesale, while making it illegal for a grower to actually sell retail + 25% tax at retail?
Is THAT necessary or fair in any way compared to other sin taxes? It's essentially > 50% tax. AT LEAST.. that's assuming your retailer buys directly from a grower. Any middle man in between multiplies the tax.
Beyond that, the fact that all regular smokers basically wouldn't be able to drive legally is just nuts.
distantmantra
Member
So should they tax it similar to beer/wine or liquor? I'd fine with that.
you might have to buy weed more than once a week. you might not be able to drive legally for a few hours after you smoke. it's going to be more controlled and more people are going to be able to smoke it. it's going to inconvenience you, so you're against it. i understand. however, i think its selfish.
one day the medical marijuana thing really took off and its been really good to quite a few people, like you. now that you've got the system set up in a way that you like, you dont want it to change. but think about everybody else. think about how much bullshit and injustice there is around this drug because its criminalized. not everybody has green cards, not everybody has medical problems, some people just want to get baked. and they should be able to, legally. that's the bottom line IMO.
distantmantra
Member
I have do that right now with beer, hasn't ruined my life.
Unless THC stays in your system much longer than alcohol or something.
nVidiot_Whore
Banned
You aren't reading correctly.
I will never be able to legally drive, nor would any regular pot smoker. It stays in your blood system way beyond impairment, and anyone who has regularly smoked for months or years it will stay for WEEKS.
So it will be effectively illegal for me to drive ever, unless I were to quit smoking pot.
And I use pot as medicine, for a crippling condition I have.. and I already pay a lot for it, including tax. But it's sold to me by people who know WTF they are doing, care about the pot and it's quality.. grow it themselves, etc.
I'm selfish for not wanting to pay at least a 50% tax if not higher? For having my pot sold to me instead by some store grown by someone whose only interest is profit and not quality? For not wanting it to be illegal for me to drive, ever?
Can't say I agree.
apparently the limit is 5 nanograms of active THC per milliliter of blood. i'm just starting to read up on it, really. it seems like it might depend on the person.
nVidiot_Whore
Banned
It can stay for weeks.. and the designated limit is really low.
Anyone using daily, even if it's at night and they never drive until the next day.. would be always above the limit.
The DUID portion of the law is being pushed by the "National Drug Policy Institute" and it's really harsh and not supported by any of the "pot" supporting groups.
this isn't true, from what little reading i've done..
http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/ar...e-that-i-502-will-nab-sober-drivers-for-duis/
'Publishing their work in December 2009, the researchers measured levels of active THC, the psychoactive compound in marijuana, in 25 heavy, long-term marijuana users over a seven-day period. The report finds that only one of the participants had active THC levels above 5 ng/mL on "admission (day 1)," which suggests that the woman was high when she arrived, and the rest had levels lower than 5 ng/mL. The woman had reported smoking four blunts per day. However, despite Martinelli's claims, the day after smoking, her THC levels had dropped to 2.9 ng/mL. Every other participant's THC levels had dropped even lower by day two. By day six, the levels were undetectable in most of the participants—and all of them were far below 5 nanograms."
"As the anti-legalization campaign repeatedly points out, the science on THC and driving is minimal. That's true, and per se cutoffs are imperfect. I agree with them on these counts. But the science that does exist shows significant potential for impairment among drivers over 5ng/mL. "At concentrations between 5 and 10 ng/mL approximately 75-90% of the observations were indicative of significant impairment in every performance test," reported Ramaekers et al in 2006."
nVidiot_Whore
Banned
It's not true.. from a little bit of reading?
I have friends who smoked less than me go to rehab.. and measure above that a week into treatment. My friend started at 15ng and he hadn't smoked regularly in weeks since he got in trouble (he was pulled over while smoking, dumbass). He did one last smoke-out the night before however, but he wasn't high that day at all.
Anyways... leaving this convo.. just a heads up though, the law isn't all it's cracked up to be.
that's kind of what i was worried about. I don't really smoke but i remember studying THC a bit last year and seemed to recall it hanging around a lot longer.
sounds shitty, but i'm all for passing it and fixing it later. sounds crappy in some respects, but waiting could be worse.
well, yeah. i'm reading about this study that's been cited by the anti 502 people. it seemingly contradicts what you said about never being under the legal limit pretty strongly?
nVidiot_Whore
Banned
I'll do more research myself then..
Firing off an e-mail to a couple of friends who've had blood tests done too.. make sure my facts are straight, but I do remember fairly clearly my friend telling me 15ng on his first day of rehab.
Could be lying.. anyways.. thanks for the info.
Makes me feel better.. I don't even smoke "much" pot.. I just smoke every evening.. it helps relieve as well as avoid a crippling condition I have called cluster headaches.
They are cracking down on "who" can have a recommendation under the current law too. It now requires a diagnosis from a pro doctor supported by your "recommendation." I have no trouble obtaining that as my recommendation actually comes from the University of Washington.
I guess I just wish they could do the "legalize thing" at the very least while leaving the current medical situation alone. Taxing me 50-75% for something I actually pretty much "need" is fairly ridiculous. I pay more taxes than the majority of people in this State and I'm fine with that.. I'd even be fine with something like a 20% tax or something.. I'd support it, vote for it, etc.
Just think this law's goals aren't really centered on removing prohibition.. the drug remains a Schedule 1 narcotic... immagine if alcohol was Schedule 1.
nVidiot_Whore
Banned
http://www.nooni502.com/wordpress/
Read down that entire page if interested.
There are numerous problems with the bill IMO.. not just the 5ng thing or the DUID either. It being easily federally challenged is another one.. we could end up passing this, which would remove the existing med laws.. and then end up with the feds shutting it all down.
All growers have to submit fingerprints to the FBI?
Some liquor board can set limits on amount of THC?
I can tell you this.. the majority of pot smokers would choose a black market over any of that. You can claim I'm worried about my own "convenience" but it was never all that inconvenient to buy pot before the existing medical laws and dispensaries. I had VERY little trouble.. quality was high.. cheap in decent quantities.. and only a phone call away from many sources.
Very few existing growers are going to be submitting fingerprints to the FBI to sell weed "legally" IMO.
Not necessarily a reason to not vote for it.. but just probably how it will work. Pot in it's current form is not destroying this country.. if legalizing it means turning into some regulated dirt weed that costs me way more than it did before.. fuck that.
Read down that entire page if interested.
There are numerous problems with the bill IMO.. not just the 5ng thing or the DUID either. It being easily federally challenged is another one.. we could end up passing this, which would remove the existing med laws.. and then end up with the feds shutting it all down.
All growers have to submit fingerprints to the FBI?
Some liquor board can set limits on amount of THC?
I can tell you this.. the majority of pot smokers would choose a black market over any of that. You can claim I'm worried about my own "convenience" but it was never all that inconvenient to buy pot before the existing medical laws and dispensaries. I had VERY little trouble.. quality was high.. cheap in decent quantities.. and only a phone call away from many sources.
Very few existing growers are going to be submitting fingerprints to the FBI to sell weed "legally" IMO.
Not necessarily a reason to not vote for it.. but just probably how it will work. Pot in it's current form is not destroying this country.. if legalizing it means turning into some regulated dirt weed that costs me way more than it did before.. fuck that.
i understand that it's not a perfect initiative. i understand that it can and probably will be challenged in the future. but it's a start. i dont smoke weed now and i dont plan to in the future, but i believe that i as an adult citizen should be able to if i want to. to me thats what its all about. this isn't full legalization, but if full legalization is ever going to happen (and it should) the people need to send a message to the government. the message is that we are in favor of legalized marijuana. it's the right thing to do. 10,000 people in washington are arrested for marijuana every year. that is what needs to stop. if it means your weed is more expensive i'm okay with that. will it be of lesser quality? i have no idea. i guess you can always go back to your many sources of quality weed that are just a phonecall away. but to just ignore the massive injustice that is taking place here because things are working well for you right now is pretty heinous.
you and i dont agree on this. we'll both vote and the will of the people will be known. i hope people vote for the right path, and not to continue down this silly road we've been on for so long.
nVidiot_Whore
Banned
I'm not ignoring the injustice; I think it's a human rights violation. I'm not even saying I'm voting no, I'm just saying their are potentially HUGE problems with this law that could set us BACKWARDS.
This law doesn't remove the human rights violations for instance. You can still go to prison for 41 grams of weed, all "legal" growers have to submit themselves to the FBI, while violating federal laws.. it honestly reads like a trap, and to top it off it's being supported by people who have a hard nosed conservative attitude towards pot and it's users, calling them "Stupid."
But I'm STILL open for discussion and analysis.
But whatever. Let's make this a super simple topic: anything that makes it "legal" is worth it!! coldvein said it, and called me selfish so I guess that's that.
I think I'll go deal with my brain damage that I am treating with pot as recommended by my neurologist and leave the discussion. You are being insulting. Calling me heinous? Go fuck yourself.. I wish upon you my disease you jackass fuck.
This law doesn't remove the human rights violations for instance. You can still go to prison for 41 grams of weed, all "legal" growers have to submit themselves to the FBI, while violating federal laws.. it honestly reads like a trap, and to top it off it's being supported by people who have a hard nosed conservative attitude towards pot and it's users, calling them "Stupid."
But I'm STILL open for discussion and analysis.
But whatever. Let's make this a super simple topic: anything that makes it "legal" is worth it!! coldvein said it, and called me selfish so I guess that's that.
I think I'll go deal with my brain damage that I am treating with pot as recommended by my neurologist and leave the discussion. You are being insulting. Calling me heinous? Go fuck yourself.. I wish upon you my disease you jackass fuck.
freenudemacusers
Member
What happened lol
Woah. Uh...
There are problems with the bill, but it's the precedent that's important. Laws can be changed. It might be rocky at first, but I'm sure that it will work out in the end. Non-smokers aren't going to vote yes unless there's some kind of driving clause, and while not perfect, it can be adjusted.
Anyway, coldvein clearly doesn't mean any ill will, no reason to get nasty over it nvidia.
There are problems with the bill, but it's the precedent that's important. Laws can be changed. It might be rocky at first, but I'm sure that it will work out in the end. Non-smokers aren't going to vote yes unless there's some kind of driving clause, and while not perfect, it can be adjusted.
Anyway, coldvein clearly doesn't mean any ill will, no reason to get nasty over it nvidia.
Cosmic Bus
pristine morning snow
lolol. Wasn't the link you originally posted about the gay marriage bill? I never understood how this whole tanget got started, heh.
nVidiot_Whore
Banned
harsh words.
Right, and calling someone heinous for attempting to rationally discuss their access to medicine isn't harsh.
I'm obviously fucking around taking it that far; just hilarious to me how insulting people can be around here.. I like to throw it back harshly and watch them cry. You have a lot of nerve dude in a discussion where we were both trying to research a bill to call me "heinous" lol.
Anyways.. the info is out there, I don't think it's so black and white but I might vote "yes" anyways. Some of the people behind the law creep me out.. they are the "we must legalize it for idiots and then tax the hell out of them" types who just blindly ignore medical marijuana's role.
I don't agree with the rather shady "let's all pretend it's medical when for most of the people with 'cards' they just paid some shady dude with a certification to get them pot" way it has been done.. but I DO think the way the "business" has been done is pretty awesome. It's very grass roots and feels like a lot of local people providing a great product at a great price... and it's not doing most people involved any real harm beyond your typical "Vice."
I think extending all of that to all over 21 makes way more sense. But whatever.. I'll keep researching this law.. but the fact that it basically ends the dispensary system while maintaining that pot is still highly illegal with basically "just over an ounce" of material seems like an odd way to go about it.. I certainly don't see how it will do anything to remove the black market..
We'll just have to see I guess.. clearly the average person doesn't seem to care about the finer details.
Seems like an awesome plan.
Also, I decided to move to Seattle once I finish school. I'm going to try my darn best to get into the Seattle Police Department!
Similar threads
- Locked