The citizens of Washington State and Colorado have thumbed their noses at the DEA.
Yeah, I know the passing of the peoples’ initiatives is old news. It happened a week ago tomorrow. I’ve had a ‘thing’ happen in my personal life that’s had me rather bummed. I won’t go into it. I’ll just say my head’s starting to come back around. “Back around” as much as it ever has been, I guess.
So what happens when the citizens of two states tell the federal government to pound sand? Remember now, what’s happened in those two states is not a result of their respective legislatures. A bill wasn’t passed through a house and senate. A governor didn’t sign a bill into law.
The people pulled together signatures for a vote to appear on a ballot. The people voted in favor of “legalizing” cannabis. But there’s a fly in the ointment. Maybe several.
Being a Washington resident I’m familiar with our recently passed initiative. Colorado’s, not so much. I’ll address the efforts of my fellow state citizens.
Our initiative has the state regulating the cultivation, distribution and final sales of cannabis under the auspices of the state liquor board. “Waiter… what’s this fly doing in my soup?!” “Backstroke,” indeed.
This is where the USDOJ will toss a wrench. They will point out cannabis is a schedule I drug. They will point to the Commerce Clause. Will the state of Washington attempt to defend its citizens? Or will the state simply fold thereby killing the whole retail sales scheme? If the state does throw in the towel what will that mean in the long run? I’m writing of a state that won’t go to bat for its people. Think about it.
Along with the efforts of WA. and CO. five Michigan municipalities voted to either decriminalize cannabis possession or make it the lowest of law enforcement priorities. Massachusetts overwhelmingly voted in medicinal cannabis (63% yes, 37% no).
You would think the DEA and the USDOJ would reevaluate their stance, wouldn’t you? How long, do you suppose, they can perpetuate their ludicrous stance?
And what if ASA wins their court case, and cannabis is ordered to be rescheduled by a U.S. Court of Appeal? That would be a neat little twist, eh?
Grab the popcorn, stay tuned!
Capn Drift's Blog 
Gator said,
November 12, 2012 at 10:33 am
I can’t do pop corn… It get’s stuck in places that take years to find it’s way out!
capndrift said,
November 12, 2012 at 2:17 pm
So then, are you a Good & Plenty sort of guy?
David Maupin said,
November 12, 2012 at 11:41 am
In the mean time beginning Dec. 6th anyone over 21 years of age may posses up to an ounce of cannabis but can’t reveal where they procured it until when, and if; the State run or licensed store opens a year or more from now. All Cannabis sales are prohibited to both Recreational and Medical Cannabis user except through the now non existent State Store. Yes the Fed, I think, will come down hard on State sponsored sales and manufacture of a schedule 1 drug but probably won’t bother with 1 oz personal recreational use or possession. So what is a State to do? Allow personal recreational use and possession of Cannabis and scrap plans for State production, sales, regulation, and taxation fearing Federal reprisal while turning a blind eye to operating dispensaries as they have been with Medical Marijuana all along? Then there’s the problem with THC blood level qualifying both Medial Cannabis patients and recreational users for a DUID if driving with an arbitrary THC blood level with no legal defense. The State certainly will enforce this portion of the law also as it’s a great source of revenue. So will the State become party to legal sales and production of a schedule 1 drug or simply turn a blind eye to black market dispensary sales while enforcing the per se THC blood level for drivers be they medical or recreational Cannabis users? I think the promises made and broken to Medical Cannabis patients by the State, cities, and counties pretty much answers these questions if State history and current city, and county actions offer any insight into the future!
capndrift said,
November 12, 2012 at 3:02 pm
If there’s a silver lining in all of this, David, it’s people aren’t buying into the government’s prohibition any longer.
When I write “people” I don’t mean municipalities or any other government body. I mean folks – plain old folks.
Do you find it a bit ironic that while the “folks” passed an initiative to “legalize” cannabis in this state, municipalities insist on hindering access for those utilizing cannabis for medicinal relief?
Frankly, I’m saddened by that. Disappointed. Hell, disgusted.
I simply don’t understand the whole, “Not in my backyard!” bullshit. Why not in -my- backyard then; or basement, attic, garage… whatever? Why should anyone give a fat rat’s? The plants don’t go on the full moon hunt seeking victims.
We are the casualty. Not of the plant, oh no, but of those who would dare to perpetuate the… the… phobia? Why? Why is that the way of it? I just don’t get it, man.
Right, wrong, or… neither; I think what Washington and Colorado have done is a statement. A statement by the people – not their government. I wonder, can that be -all- bad?
David Maupin said,
November 12, 2012 at 4:14 pm
‘Right, wrong, or… neither; I think what Washington and Colorado have done is a statement. A statement by the people – not their government. I wonder, can that be -all- bad?’
It’s great that voters stood up and made a statement! It would be even better if the government would fulfill the peoples directive (statement) as proclaimed by majority vote of the people. But they didn’t, haven’t, won’t put into action much of what the people voted for, same as they have done with Medical Cannabis! I can see private ‘bring your own’ smoking clubs and cafes popping up, at least for a while. A State operated or licensed store providing Cannabis a year from now? Yeah right…
David Maupin said,
November 12, 2012 at 5:15 pm
That said, Colorado law is a little different from Washington law. I Colorado the measure allows adults to have up to 1 ounce of marijuana OR six marijuana plants. The proposal also allows for commercial pot sales, though cities and counties would have permission to ban marijuana sales if they choose. The plan would also direct state lawmakers to put an undetermined excise tax on pot, with the proceeds going to education.
Here in Washington any adult may legally possess an ounce of Cannabis (I-502 Sec. 20. (which ammends RCW 69.50.4013 & 2003 c 53 s 334) doesn’t care where you got your weed from, but if Officer Dicknuts will ask you where you got it from, though, hoping you’ll admit to committing a crime, hopefully you’ll tell him you need a lawyer before you submit to any questioning as is your right.
David Maupin said,
November 12, 2012 at 5:59 pm
‘This is where the USDOJ will toss a wrench. They will point out cannabis is a schedule I drug. They will point to the Commerce Clause.’
The Federal Government might be swayed to reclassify Cannabis from schedule 1 given enough collective states pressure. The Pharmaceutical companies would love that, schedules 3 or 4 would allow them to dispense all the various patented constituents of Cannabis in ‘standardized form’ approved by the FDA. The plant in it’s natural raw state however might contain carcinogenic or other harmful unknown chemicals unapproved by the FDA? No, rescheduled Cannabis would be better left to the pharmaceutical manufacturers and compound (brand name) prescribing physicians? Sounds reasonable to me, lol..
Sorry about ‘over posting”, I’ll stop now..
capndrift said,
November 12, 2012 at 8:29 pm
I did see where Colorado allows for meager cultivation. I do-so wish Washington’s initiative had a provision, but it don’t. I also noticed your emphasis on 1 ounce OR six plants for Colorado. You’re gonna have to show me where to find that. What I found was:
18 (3) Personal use of marijuana. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER PROVISION OF
19 LAW, THE FOLLOWING ACTS ARE NOT UNLAWFUL AND SHALL NOT BE AN OFFENSE
20 UNDER COLORADO LAW OR THE LAW OF ANY LOCALITY WITHIN COLORADO OR BE
21 A BASIS FOR SEIZURE OR FORFEITURE OF ASSETS UNDER COLORADO LAW FOR
22 PERSONS TWENTY-ONE YEARS OF AGE OR OLDER:
23 (a) POSSESSING, USING, DISPLAYING, PURCHASING, OR TRANSPORTING
24 MARIJUANA ACCESSORIES OR ONE OUNCE OR LESS OF MARIJUANA.
25 (b) POSSESSING, GROWING, PROCESSING, OR TRANSPORTING NO MORE
26 THAN SIX MARIJUANA PLANTS, WITH THREE OR FEWER BEING MATURE, FLOWERING
27 PLANTS, AND POSSESSION OF THE MARIJUANA PRODUCED BY THE PLANTS ON THE
28 PREMISES WHERE THE PLANTS WERE GROWN, PROVIDED THAT THE GROWING TAKES
29 PLACE IN AN ENCLOSED, LOCKED SPACE, IS NOT CONDUCTED OPENLY OR PUBLICLY,
30 AND IS NOT MADE AVAILABLE FOR SALE.
31 (c) TRANSFER OF ONE OUNCE OR LESS OF MARIJUANA WITHOUT
32 REMUNERATION TO A PERSON WHO IS TWENTY-ONE YEARS OF AGE OR OLDER.
4
1 (d) CONSUMPTION OF MARIJUANA, PROVIDED THAT NOTHING IN THIS
2 SECTION SHALL PERMIT CONSUMPTION THAT IS CONDUCTED OPENLY AND PUBLICLY
3 OR IN A MANNER THAT ENDANGERS OTHERS.
4 (e) ASSISTING ANOTHER PERSON WHO IS TWENTY-ONE YEARS OF AGE OR
5 OLDER IN ANY OF THE ACTS DESCRIBED IN PARAGRAPHS (a) THROUGH (d) OF THIS
6 SUBSECTION.
Yeah, the copy and paste is fucked up. If you can manage to wade through it though, you’ll see the only mention of an ounce has to do with handing it, or less, to an individual for no “remuneration.” Oh, and it’s a three-and-three law for home cultivation. That is, three flowering and three in the vegetative state. Oh, and I don’t live in Colorado. I live in Washington.
And at this point I couldn’t care less for “pot clubs.” Okay?
I mean, I’m all good with recreational users doing the recreational thing, but the heinous bastards in this state won’t even allow “patients” to support one another. What the fuck is up with THAT!?
Pharmaceutical outfits… C’mon are they really a bane or simply a confused industry? I’ve written of this here before –
Between ’98 and 2012 “they” spent 2B in lobbying. Lobbying for what I’m not exactly sure, but it’s obvious they’ve dollars to buy… stuff.
Do they really give a shit if folks can legally grow their own cannabis? If they do, they’re idiots. Plain and simple. If they had a clue they’d check in with those California dispensaries to see who was buying what for what and use that as a base line for research. I’ve read the CBD rich material (won’t get a fly high) flies off the shelves. Folks with chronic pain buy it up. I need to get me some’a that.
At a southern university research on stopping leukemia, with synthetic cannabinoids, is in process. Is that a bad thing?
I say reschedule, let the labs have their way with the plant. And let me have mine. C’mon, if a cannabinoid out of a factory would slow the progression of my arthritis you think I’m going to tell them to fuck off?
The whole nation is talking about Washington and Colorado’s move, Dave. Talking, man… talking. Aint that just cool beans? I certainly think so.
Over posting? Shirley, you jest!
David Maupin said,
November 14, 2012 at 10:57 am
Lol, I think we could agree, deschedule the Cannabis plant, remove it from the list entirely. Schedule the many compounds derived from Cannabis into classes 2,3,4, wherever they fit best, that will work for me. Yes, the States are talking and that’s a good start..;)
capndrift said,
November 14, 2012 at 12:28 pm
Dave, I just read where four Eastern states are looking at passing law to end cannabis prohibition. Man! Now -that’s- what I’m talking about (someone might wanna tell the feds the jig is up)!!!
Yeah, I think simply ignoring the whole plant (schedule wise) and working on producing medicines from the cannabinoids and terpenes (or combinations thereof) would be an intelligent move.
David Maupin said,
November 16, 2012 at 7:38 am
Marinol was a schedule 2 drug but after review was changed to schedule 3: http://www.petermcwilliams.org/mirrors/www.ahemp.org/Marinol_III.html
Yes, Cannabis has to be de-scheduled entirely and, like Marinol, the component terpines and cannabinoids need to be scheduled, manufactured, prescribed.. The State’s Rights issue should make de-scheduling the Cannabis plant a clear Federal option.
David Maupin said,
November 19, 2012 at 9:08 pm
‘The State’s Rights issue should make de-scheduling the Cannabis plant a clear Federal option.’
Sounds like a simple solution for all right? Wrong! The is an International Treaty that prevents de-scheduling of Cannabis without UN approval of changing a sixty or so year treaty that has been tested but never broken. Read the International Single Convention on Narcotic drugs: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_Convention_on_Narcotic_Drugs . So that’s probably the largest fly in the ointment as far as federal de-scheduling of Cannabis, the Fed can’t do it without international consent, or breaking international treaty law..:(
capndrift said,
November 20, 2012 at 7:15 am
Don’t tell that to Uruguay (cannabis legalization) or Bolivia (coca chewing).
‘Sides, Dave, The U.S. can do whatever the Hell it wants. Everbody knows that! ;^)
David Maupin said,
November 27, 2012 at 7:29 pm
Due process must still be followed though so as not to confuse: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=XnmmkA8hhiY