Wash. Could Become First State To OK Pot Sales

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Frazzled**

Open that floodgate baby. Strike a blow for freedom!
http://seattle.cbslocal.com/2012/10/11/wash-could-become-first-state-to-ok-pot-sales/

Wash. Could Become First State To OK Pot Sales
October 11, 2012 3:18 PM
legalize pot, Marijuana, pot, pot sales, Trending SEATTLE (AP) — Washington state is on the verge of becoming the first in the nation to let adults over 21 buy taxed, inspected marijuana at state-licensed shops.

It might not clear up more than a decade of confusion that resulted from the state’s medical marijuana law, or reverse the proliferation of dispensaries. But supporters say passing Initiative 502 on Nov. 6 could make drug laws more reasonable, prevent thousands of arrests a year, and bring Washington hundreds of millions of dollars to help pay for schools, health care and basic government services.

It could also set up a big fight with the federal government.

Voters in Colorado and Oregon are considering similar measures. But based on polls, Washington’s initiative might stand the best chance of passing. The measure has drawn slim organized opposition and gained support from some former federal law enforcement officers. The campaign has raised $4.1 million.

“There’s a real disconnect with pot,” said Brooke Thompson, a retired teacher from Bainbridge Island who found marijuana innocuous when she smoked it as a young adult. “It’s been criminalized and criminals are making money on it. The state could be making money on it, and using the taxes to go into education. It seems like a win-win, and it would be nice for Washington to be the testing ground on this.”

“Testing ground” is the right phrase. Washington could become a laboratory in easing the nation’s drug war, which has cost more than $1 trillion and hundreds of thousands of lives in the past 40 years while doing little to dent demand.

Just as likely, it could bring on a protracted fight with the federal government. Marijuana remains illegal under U.S. law, and when state and federal laws conflict, federal law takes precedence. The Justice Department has kept mum, but if I-502 passes, many lawyers believe the DOJ is likely to try to block the law on the grounds that it frustrates the Controlled Substances Act.

That could leave just part of the initiative standing: decriminalization of up to an ounce of pot under state law, with no way to buy it legally, and a driving-under-the-influence standard that opponents consider arbitrarily strict.

The federal government could also prosecute growers or retailers licensed under the law, seize Washington’s new marijuana revenues as proceeds of illicit drug deals, or withhold money from the state.

Nevertheless, I-502′s sponsors, including former Seattle U.S. Attorney John McKay, Seattle City Attorney Pete Holmes and travel writer Rick Steves, say the measure has been drafted to withstand a federal challenge. Alison Holcomb, I-502′s campaign manager, said at a recent debate that she would sit down with representatives of the federal government to explain how the measure could complement, not frustrate, federal efforts.

The initiative, promoted by New Approach Washington, would create a system of state-licensed growers, processors and stores, and would impose a 25 percent excise tax at each stage. Adults 21 and over could buy up to an ounce of dried marijuana; one pound of marijuana-infused product in solid form, such as brownies; or 72 ounces of marijuana-infused liquids. The cannabis would be subject to testing to establish its THC content.

Sales wouldn’t begin immediately. The state Liquor Control Board would have a year to establish guidelines.

Holcomb, who concedes that marijuana is addictive for some, says I-502 would allow authorities to treat it as a public health issue, as has been effective in reducing tobacco use.

“We don’t arrest adults for tobacco use to try to keep kids from using it,” she said.

State revenue experts have estimated that I-502 could bring in as much as $1.9 billion in the next five years. Some of the money would be dedicated to the state general fund, while other portions would be devoted to health care, education and substance-abuse prevention.

If the initiative passes:

—Public use or display of marijuana would be barred.

—No marijuana facilities could be located near schools, day cares, parks or libraries.

—Employers would still be able to fire workers who test positive for pot.

—It would remain illegal to privately grow marijuana for recreational use, though medical patients could still grow their own or designate someone to grow it for them.

—It would be illegal to drive with more than 5 nanograms of THC, the active ingredient of cannabis, per milliliter of blood, if the driver is over 21; for those under 21, there would be a zero tolerance policy.

There would be no legal effect on medical marijuana dispensaries. However, it could have a political effect, Holcomb said. If recreational pot sales are allowed, prosecutors and investigators might take a more critical look at whether those operations are truly serving sick people.

Organized opposition comes from a group of medical marijuana patients who object to the DUI standard and say that if people can’t grow their own, it’s not really legalization at all.

Other public health and some law enforcement officials also oppose it, even if they haven’t raised any money.

Mitch Barker, executive director of the Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs, said his organization is concerned about increasing availability of marijuana, especially for teens, and the difficulty of enforcing the DUI provisions.

The initiative’s biggest financial contributor is Progressive Insurance founder Peter Lewis, who has given more than $1.5 million. Lewis also contributed to Washington’s medical marijuana campaigns in 1997 and 1998.

Other donors include New York-based Drug Policy Action and the American Civil Liberties Union of Washington.

The former head of the FBI in Seattle and both candidates for King County sheriff have voiced support.

Voters like Terry Lavender, a retired 61-year-old from Woodinville who used pot decades ago, say they’re intrigued by the idea of being able to walk into a state licensed store and buy marijuana.

“I enjoy a bit of scotch, I enjoy a beer, so maybe I would,” Lavender says. “But that’s not my motivation for doing this. My motivation is to stop locking people up.”

(© Copyright 2012 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.)

**Albatross**

Wow. Good call. I've been saying that we should do something similar over here for years. It's a no-cost stimulus package.

**kronk**

Poor G4. After Pot is legalized, they'll have nothing to champion.

I'm for it. Legalize and tax the hell out of it like Tobacco.

**Albatross**

kronk wrote:
Poor G4. After Pot is legalized, they'll have nothing to champion.

I'm for it. Legalize and tax the hell out of it like Tobacco.

Woah, woah! Tax it, sure... within reasonable parameters.

**whembly**

Albatross wrote:
kronk wrote:
Poor G4. After Pot is legalized, they'll have nothing to champion.

I'm for it. Legalize and tax the hell out of it like Tobacco.

Woah, woah! Tax it, sure... within reasonable parameters.

Just tax / regulate it like any other vices (ciggy, alcohol).

**kronk**

Albatross wrote:
kronk wrote:
Poor G4. After Pot is legalized, they'll have nothing to champion.

I'm for it. Legalize and tax the hell out of it like Tobacco.

Woah, woah! Tax it, sure... within reasonable parameters.

But my state needs moneh!

**Testify**

I did some research for this last night (while baked off my face

). The UK cannabis market is worth ~£6bn. Assuming legalisation would increase production efficiency enough to bring the cost down, you could easily tax that 100%. £6bn extra in the government coffers, boom.

**Albatross**

kronk wrote:
Albatross wrote:
kronk wrote:
Poor G4. After Pot is legalized, they'll have nothing to champion.

I'm for it. Legalize and tax the hell out of it like Tobacco.

Woah, woah! Tax it, sure... within reasonable parameters.

But my state needs moneh!

Aha, but the more money you leave in stoner's pockets, the more money they have to spend on Doritos.

Economics!

**kronk**

Tax the gak out of Doritos! I like it!

Call it Fat Tax or Munchie Tax!

**Albatross**

I think junk food should be taxed up the arse anyway - so much of it has absolutely infinitesimal nutritional value.

**kronk**

I'd vote for you!

**Mattman154**

Albatross wrote:
I think junk food should be taxed up the arse anyway - so much of it has absolutely infinitesimal nutritional value.

Too bad you can't tax time spent on the couch, that would really help!

**Alfndrate**

Mattman154 wrote:
Albatross wrote:
I think junk food should be taxed up the arse anyway - so much of it has absolutely infinitesimal nutritional value.

Too bad you can't tax time spent on the couch, that would really help!

I would be screwed, I'm going to be sleeping on my parents' couch while I get a new bed... D:

As the legalization of pot, I'm all for taxing the hell out of it. Look at the Altria Group (Owners of Phillip Morris), they're worth a couple of billion dollars, smokes are going for over 5 bucks a pack, and people still smoke them. One of my co-workers smokes probably close to a pack or more a day. That's probably over 40 bucks a week that he spends on cigs. Just think if we had that money rollin' in (pun intended).

I agree that there should be a blood tox limit as with alcohol. While I'm not a fan of the stuff, I don't think we should restrict it...

Though maybe I-502 will be a gateway law, opening up the floodgates for lawmakers to try and get more and more drugs through to reach that same goal... lol

**Noir**

Albatross wrote:
kronk wrote:
Poor G4. After Pot is legalized, they'll have nothing to champion.

I'm for it. Legalize and tax the hell out of it like Tobacco.

Woah, woah! Tax it, sure... within reasonable parameters.

Even if tax like tabacco, it wolud still be cheeper then now.

Anyways were I live, California we lost in 2010, 53% to 46%. So damn close, the state vs. federal fallout alone would of been great.

**Manchu**

I think vice taxes are rather offensive. I understand that there is a social cost to drug abuse, whether alcohol or nicotine or otherwise (although I am not necessarily convinced that it is really as high as some people think), but its not like vice tax revenues are earmarked for dealing with those costs. Furthermore, why should incidental users need to pay for those prospective costs? As it is, vice tax is purely and transparently punitive. And since when has punishment been an effective treatment for addiction? As far as preventing addiction, education is far more effective than punishment. If the government wants to tax manufacturers in order to specifically fund public service announcements and those manufacturers pass the expense on to their customers, fine fine fine. But a direct tax on consumers comes off to me as extortion justified as moral superiority.

**Frazzled**

VIce taxes are not about the vice, its about the inelasticity of demand.

**Manchu**

I understand that the (non)effect of vice taxes on price might illustrate inelasticity but you seem to be implying a causal relationship. Can you clarify that?

**Alfndrate**

Manchu wrote:
And since when has punishment been an effective treatment for addiction? As far as preventing addiction, education is far more effective than punishment.

Whoah. Whoah. Whoah. Every pot smoker I've talked to has informed me that pot is not addictive. Have they been lying to me and themselves this entire time?

I do see your point, but at the same time I only drink, I suck it up and pay the tax for a bottle of scotch that lasts me a few months, but I see my mom who smokes buy a pack a week or so, and that gak gets expensive. People are addicted to their substances, the increase in price or taxes rarely changes anything. Look at people that buy GW models still

, or the money made on caffeine products (i.e. coffee, energy drinks, and soda). A freaking cup of coffee at Starbucks costs more than a pack of cigs in some cases and people are addicted to caffeine as much as they can be to nicotine.

**Frazzled**

Manchu wrote:
I understand that the (non)effect of vice taxes on price might illustrate inelasticity but you seem to be implying a causal relationship. Can you clarify that?

Yes. "Vice" items are taxed more heavily because they can be. The marginal utility as it were of the tax is extremeley high.

example: government imposing a 100% tax.
A 100% tax on autos: kills the industry. There is rioting in the streets. Texas secedes and immediately conquers Mexico, Canada, and all of the midwest (except Illinois). New Mexico becomes the new Botany Bay. Actual tax receipts go through the floor. Now that I think about it this isn't such a bad idea...

B. 100% tax on Mad Dog 40. A few people may quit and more will drink less, but the net total tax receipts increase.

Sure many will put a tax on a "vice" item out of some mistaken morality, but in reality repeated increases in taxes on these items is because people are greedy and this is an easy way to get more money.

**Manchu**

Frazzled wrote:
Sure many will put a tax on a "vice" item out of some mistaken morality, but in reality repeated increases in taxes on these items is because people are greedy and this is an easy way to get more money.

Dude, that's what I said!

Manchu wrote:
But a direct tax on consumers comes off to me as extortion justified as moral superiority.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Alfndrate wrote:
Every pot smoker I've talked to has informed me that pot is not addictive.

That's not what I was talking about and I have no interest in getting into that debate. /runs

**Frazzled**

Manchu wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Sure many will put a tax on a "vice" item out of some mistaken morality, but in reality repeated increases in taxes on these items is because people are greedy and this is an easy way to get more money.
Dude, that's what I said!
Manchu wrote:
But a direct tax on consumers comes off to me as extortion justified as moral superiority.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Alfndrate wrote:
Every pot smoker I've talked to has informed me that pot is not addictive.
That's not what I was talking about and I have no interest in getting into that debate. /runs

Dude, then we're in agreement!

**Cheesecat**

Alfndrate wrote:
Manchu wrote:
And since when has punishment been an effective treatment for addiction? As far as preventing addiction, education is far more effective than punishment.

Whoah. Whoah. Whoah. Every pot smoker I've talked to has informed me that pot is not addictive. Have they been lying to me and themselves this entire time?

I'm calling bull gak on that, if you can't go a week without smoking a joint then you're addicted to weed.

**kronk**

We should tax porn more. Also, allow prostitution but tax it too.

Let's feth our way out of this recession!

**Jihadin**

Kronk...

**kronk**

What?

Economic Prosperity, one ass at a time!

**Alfndrate**

Manchu wrote:
Alfndrate wrote:
Every pot smoker I've talked to has informed me that pot is not addictive.
That's not what I was talking about and I have no interest in getting into that debate. /runs

I do not smoke, I know too many people that do, and many of them partake several times a day, or several times in a sitting. Many of them refuse to even attempt going more than 12 hours without smoking. In my mind, it denotes a level of addiction.

Cheesecat wrote:
Alfndrate wrote:
Manchu wrote:
And since when has punishment been an effective treatment for addiction? As far as preventing addiction, education is far more effective than punishment.

Whoah. Whoah. Whoah. Every pot smoker I've talked to has informed me that pot is not addictive. Have they been lying to me and themselves this entire time?

I'm calling bull gak on that, if you can't go a week without smoking a joint then you're addicted to weed.

I like your avatar in relation to this thread lol

Kronk, you're my favorite dakkanaut

**streamdragon**

I am 100% behind this move. Good to see a couple other states are working on it also.

Now if the fed would just wake the frell up, we'd be good to go. I remember reading awhile back that Kentucky grows a couple billion dollars worth of weed a year. Imagine if that money wasn't going to some organized crime group and was instead being used by the state!

Prohibition failed once, leading to organized crime and a black market. I'm not sure why some people think Prohibition Mark II will work any better.

**Cheesecat**

Alfndrate wrote:
Manchu wrote:
Alfndrate wrote:
Every pot smoker I've talked to has informed me that pot is not addictive.
That's not what I was talking about and I have no interest in getting into that debate. /runs

I do not smoke, I know too many people that do, and many of them partake several times a day, or several times in a sitting. Many of them refuse to even attempt going more than 12 hours without smoking. In my mind, it denotes a level of addiction.

Cheesecat wrote:
Alfndrate wrote:
Manchu wrote:
And since when has punishment been an effective treatment for addiction? As far as preventing addiction, education is far more effective than punishment.

Whoah. Whoah. Whoah. Every pot smoker I've talked to has informed me that pot is not addictive. Have they been lying to me and themselves this entire time?

I'm calling bull gak on that, if you can't go a week without smoking a joint then you're addicted to weed.

I like your avatar in relation to this thread lol

Kronk, you're my favorite dakkanaut

Despite my avatar, I don't actually do many drugs, I only do it during social events if my friends are doing it, I don't smoke weed or drink by myself either.

**whembly**

kronk wrote:
What?

Economic Prosperity, one ass at a time!

Duuuuude.

We need to vote for Kronk!

In fact, taxing the sex trade is guarantee'ed revenue streams!

**KalashnikovMarine**

Legalizing prostitution has always seemed like a good idea to me. People wanna bone and they'll pay for the privilege. Not like it doesn't happen any way. Might as well make it safer, regulated AND tax the living hell out of it.

BUT back on MJ as a Colorado voter it's a HORRIBLE fecking idea.... for us right now any way. The MAJOR issue is to hold most government/government contracted jobs or anything with a clearance even if your state throws a pot leaf on it's flag and legalizes it up the arse, the Feds will still demand compliance in federal jobs. A very healthy portion of Colorado's revenue is from the defense industry. Vote yes on pot, say good bye to a primary revenue stream.

Further I think it would hurt jobs across the board. Say I'm a national business, or any business really. I have to comply with state and federal law. Pretty sure if I'm hiring druggies the feds can come down on me like a nine pound hammer to the temple.