Many Washington marijuana activists oppose legalization initiative

In my opinion this law is only structured to monopolize cannabis... they don't give a shit about what's best for us, or even what the right thing to do is... they just want the profits, nothing else.


If this law is passed, you can pretty guarantee that cannabis laws will continue to be unjust for the next 100 years as well. This might be a step in the right direction, but this is the only step we're taking. If we pass this, that's it... until we pass some kind of reform on a national/federal level than we're going to be stuck with this backwards law
 
^You know, I just don't see it creating a corporate or even a government monopoly. Wholesalers and retailers have to get licenses from the liquor board. The cost of the license is $250, $1000 to renew. The wholesalers can't have a financial stack in the retailers. It's really not unlike other state's liquor laws. It sucks that you just can't grow your own, but you already can't anyway. Same as you can't distill your own liquor. In either case there's nothing stopping you from continuing civil disobedience. It's not perfect, but a step up.

My fear of legalization is that big business will take it over. I'd prefer individual growers and co-ops, if not that then even a government monopoly, over big business.

Also I think 502 is a little bit more lax with paraphernalia. And I feel the legal age for cannabis use should be 18, not 21, 16 with parental consent.

Is it possible to vote yes on both, or will they contradict each other?
 
That's so dumb. These people piss me off.

We don't need to legalize marijuana to make it easier to get. Marijuana is already easy to get. I smoke a shitload of marijuana. It's easy. We need to legalize it so smokers will no longer live in legal jeopardy. This initiative -- and Prop. 19 -- both accomplish that.

Look, brewing moonshine is illegal some places. That doesn't stop people from doing it, and it certainly doesn't create anywhere near the amount of damage that drug prohibition does. "Legal to use" is an immense social and political threshold.

I don't give a rat's ass whose business runs the whole thing. Nobody goes to jail for smoking Newports. That's a big deal.
 
a logistical problem with two simultaneous legalization initiatives is that they will split the marijuana vote. The strategically prudent thing to do would be to vote yes on both.

unless: What happens if both pass?
 
Who cares if they say it cannot be grown at home on the first law. It is a step in the right direction.... we are allowed to smoke it and possess. The govornment accually has an incentive to legalize if they think they can make money, it will be kin to alcohol. The revenuers will try to find grow spots.

And if someone wants to grow weed now it's illegal, it will be with the bill. People are still going to grow pot.They won't be able to tell that we have govornment pot or a friends pot if they find it.
 
SteeleyJ said:
Who cares if they say it cannot be grown at home on the first law.
Click to expand...

You're right, this is the first law, and who's to say there will be any more following this one? If this law comes into power than we're not going to see the major reform that we all want for another 10 years at least


We've been waiting 100 years for this, let's not jump the gun and sell ourselves short. It's obvious that the American people are fed up with the current system, but lets not jump to another shitty solution to this problem.

We need real reform. Anything less and we sell ourselves short.
 
I absolutely agree, but the govornment needs a reason. They make money this way.

On a federal level I would agree, but why not set the precedent in Washington and get the ball rolling for other states to do similar.
 
Well I guess just being from here, I wouldn't like to sacrifice ourselves so other states can frame their laws around our mistakes... I would rather us just get it right the first time.

Our laws here are already lax enough as it is, marijuana is officially the lowest priority for Seattle police officers... getting caught with under 14g is a couple hundred dollar fine. Under 3 year sentences for growing/selling under 100 plants or something like that.



502 changes that, and add stiff as hell penalties for anyone selling or growing weed... that's why I oppose it, if people are going to jail for a damn plant there is a problem.
 
Folley said:
Our laws here are already lax enough as it is, marijuana is officially the lowest priority for Seattle police officers... getting caught with under 14g is a couple hundred dollar fine. Under 3 year sentences for growing/selling under 100 plants or something like that.
Click to expand...

And 100,000 dead Mexicans.
 
Folley said:
but can you even conceive that we cannot grow a weed?? Any body can grow marijuana, it's not hard, and it's certainly a hell of a lot cheaper... if we vote for 502, we give up that completely.
Click to expand...

Currently you can't grow weed.
 
Folley, it seems to me that you are putting the individual's right to produce and sell a drug ahead of his right to possess and use a drug.

I believe, and I think the vast majority of drug users would agree with me, that the latter right is far more important. How many alcohol users complain about the state restrictions on production and sale? They have access to guaranteed-pure product and the right to own and use it. Any additional rights are nice, but negligible in comparison.
 
Folley said:
lmao this is Washington, all our weed is homegrown. The medical weed is homegrown.
Click to expand...
Do you honestly think that the drug cartels and other gangsters aren't involved at all in Washington's cannabis black market? Mexican drug cartels make and sell dank too.
 
I guess part of the problem here are the competing perceptions of Washington as a sovereign island vs. part of a nation.

I believe that legalization in a few states will catalyze legalization in every state. For that to happen, the drug communities in those few states have to make some compromises. Otherwise the voters will not approve full-fledged legalization. Not yet.

That scenario asks Washingtonians to vote strategically and perhaps make some temporary sacrifices in order to more rapidly win the war. Maybe that's not a fair thing to ask, because nobody can guarantee them that their example will ultimately lead to victory.

How did we ever get rid of alcohol prohibition?
 
Nearly every day I see somebody say 'legalise regulate and tax', now when the oppertunity for, lets face it, a huge step forward comes along, nobody wants that? Nothing will ever be legalised if thats the attitude.
 
I think the legalization movement should do two things:

1.For starters, get cannabis moved from CI to CV, where it can be sold OTC. Surely it's safer and less addictive than any CIV drug like benzos or Darvon. AFAIK no one's actually proposed keeping the Controlled Substance Act partly intact, but moving more drugs to CV. Then move on to legalizing it like alcohol and tobacco.
2.Focus more on gaining international support for legalization. Part of the problem is a lot of countries would legalize, but can't due to the Convention On Narcotic Drugs. They don't want to be hit with sanctions or even be invaded. This is why the Netherlands didn't totally legalize cannabis, just tolerated it. It demanded that traditional use of opium, coca and cannabis be wiped out by 25 years after the signing in 1961. What a success that's been8). Problem is the five permanent veto-wielding members of the UN Security Council(US, Russia, China, the UK and France) aren't exactly liberal on the drug issue:(.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top