-
As of today ICMag has his own Discord server. In this Discord server you can chat, talk with eachother, listen to music, share stories and pictures...and much more. Join now and let's grow together! Join ICMag Discord here! More details in this thread here: here.
Vote NO to legalize cannabis....Or else
- Thread starter shaggyballs
- Start date
- Status
To be honest no one knows how legalization will end up, my hope is it includes personal growing for non commercial use, that will be allowed at home.
One thing we do know is that we need change and an end to the 800,000+ arrests, my hope is for legalization to end most of the arrests, decriminalization will not, as many growers will continue to get busted for many reasons, mainly commercial reasons.
I agree with many of the anti-government feelings, but I want change, real change, and that is why I support efforts to Tax, Regulate, and Legalize. That and a federal rescheduling down to schedule 3.
-SamS
One thing we do know is that we need change and an end to the 800,000+ arrests, my hope is for legalization to end most of the arrests, decriminalization will not, as many growers will continue to get busted for many reasons, mainly commercial reasons.
I agree with many of the anti-government feelings, but I want change, real change, and that is why I support efforts to Tax, Regulate, and Legalize. That and a federal rescheduling down to schedule 3.
-SamS
So just what would schedule 3 do? I've heard people crying for schedule 2, which would be a disaster.
As for legalizing, i'm for it, and the CO model at least lets you grow a few plants at home.
The medical model that is here in AZ and is being used, sort of, in all of the states to pass mmj since, eliminates all home growing. Only the peeps who were commercial illegal growers before it passed, can afford to open shop. And non mj peeps who have a lot of money.
So, i'm torn, i love to grow, and love being legal, but i can't grow and be legal. they will bust me in a heartbeat, and deny me ever to be an mmj patient again.
so, i can go to the mmj dispensary and pay 360 an oz or 65 an 1/8th. but that's too expensive, so i have to get from someone who is only charging 200 a zip, or go buy schwag. course then i'm breaking the law, but once i'm away from the 'dealers' house, i'm good. that is till they start making you prove where you got it.lol
As for legalizing, i'm for it, and the CO model at least lets you grow a few plants at home.
The medical model that is here in AZ and is being used, sort of, in all of the states to pass mmj since, eliminates all home growing. Only the peeps who were commercial illegal growers before it passed, can afford to open shop. And non mj peeps who have a lot of money.
So, i'm torn, i love to grow, and love being legal, but i can't grow and be legal. they will bust me in a heartbeat, and deny me ever to be an mmj patient again.
so, i can go to the mmj dispensary and pay 360 an oz or 65 an 1/8th. but that's too expensive, so i have to get from someone who is only charging 200 a zip, or go buy schwag. course then i'm breaking the law, but once i'm away from the 'dealers' house, i'm good. that is till they start making you prove where you got it.lol
CO. guys please chime in here I am ignorant of the facts on this subject!
But what I here there is a bar code on the package so it is able to be tracked and if found in the wrong place it can be deemed as evidence of a crime.(not fact)Probably true.
shag
Last edited:
I do agree our first priority should be to keep people out of jail for anything to do with cannabis.
I just cringe at the thought of giving up your rights for any reason....we have lost so many already!
It is just a plant after all!
Especially a plant that has not been adulterated or concentrated!
shag
I feel for people in your situation. Being able to grow your own is a must have in any reasonable legalization scenario. It's what keeps the whole thing honest at all. The number of personal growers in CO has to be astronomical, expanding all the time. It's the quietest revolution you never heard of. That's the real bedrock of legalization, the no way to stop it part, the part that forces a new paradigm. It forces all the other players to work together to get the other part of it to work, the business/ tax revenue generating part. Otherwise, they get cut out completely, throwing away tax revenues & profit opportunities. Nobody will let that happen.
It's called co-opting the system. Give 'em reasons to buy in that they can understand, compassion being the least of it.
What we got in return, I'm convinced, is an opportunity to crush prohibition, to come to more honest & more tolerant ways of dealing with each other as a people.
The big guys get a piece of it? Of course they do, silly people. This is America. OTOH, the piece we got is entirely adequate for the vast majority of Coloradans, and adequate for demonstrating that our method of legalization works enormously better than any other known way of doing things. It's all we've ever needed- a chance, and this is it. Our adversaries never had a clue, and now they don't even have a prayer.
Please. Just because our rights haven't been expanded to all that we might like doesn't mean we've given them up when favorable change falls short of that. Colorado's new system requires us to give up nothing we ever had.
"they" can continue to suck my dick just as they're doing right now.
Overgrow the planet...Fuck the police...Soylent green is people...
Overgrow the planet...Fuck the police...Soylent green is people...
@Jhhnn
See we are on the same side!
We just have different views on the best way(for the people) to get there safely!
Do it like beer and it will be satisfactory to me!
shag
See we are on the same side!
We just have different views on the best way(for the people) to get there safely!
Do it like beer and it will be satisfactory to me!
shag
Last edited:
"they" don't give you rights, you have rights, you just do, you're an autonomous being you are not pinocchio. they can't give you rights, unless you let them, they can't control you unless you submit.
give me liberty or give me death, if this isn't your highest belief you're simply doing it wrong sirs and madame's.
give me liberty or give me death, if this isn't your highest belief you're simply doing it wrong sirs and madame's.
1 No guns for med patients here!
2 Drones flying in visible site here!People are saying they are looking in windows)
3 The Right to Privacy here(cameras everywhere...everywhere!
4 Freedom to smoke where you want(I am a non smoker)
5 Democrats in the Senate want to take away your right to free speech.Send you to free speech zones away from All the action.
6 Patriot Act(this one is crazy if you know what it really means!)
7 Ban on small vegetable gardens in MI.
Assault on the First Amendment.
At least, that’s what Senator Ted Cruz wrote on Sunday in a Wall Street Journal op-ed that explained the left’s “assault on the First Amendment.”
http://www.capitolhilldaily.com/2014/06/amendment-may-limit-free-speech/
Marijuana users may not possess a firearm or ammunition. They may not hold federal security
clearances. Federal contractors and private employers may be free to refuse to hire them and to fire them. If fired, they may be
ineligible for unemployment compensation. They may be denied federally assisted housing.
All gone!
Just to name a few!
Last edited:
Captain Ginyu
Member
bullshit! it is legal to brew your own beer, & make your own wine right now, & it HAS BEEN for decades. yes, to get good moonshine you are breaking the law. but that is mainly because of the money-grubbing thugs that were putting trash in it, & condensing it through auto radiators & poisoning people with the lead used to solder the joints up. I don't WANT "pure grain" THC, just good smoke. you can quit trying to blow smoke up my ass about us being better off dealing with the police by keeping it illegal. when it is legal, industry will have to stop drug testing for THC, allowing people to keep their jobs instead of living on welfare/food stamps etc. I aint buying whatever it is you think you are selling...
Let's take a look at some real history here, and reflect...
Actually, home made liquor has been outlawed since the days of Washington; he was largely responsible in putting it into action. It just could not be tolerated that people were making a product, and selling it, profiting, and without paying anyone else for it. The government; starving, and in it's early infancy, already started flexing it's muscle by taking from some, and giving to others. Needless to say, the art of legalized theft has never stopped since. Who are the real money-grubbing thugs?
I voted for I-502 allowing recreational with promises of not touching medical.
in secret, they designed the rules for 502, and in doing so decided to change parameters of RCW61.5 reducing possession of processed cannabis from 24 oz to 1 oz, and eliminating personal grows completely.
that knife in the back was twisted. for tax revenue.
CO has the proper and right way, and we were lead to believe that Washington would follow Colorados example, till the lawyers played 3 card monti with our hard gained rights.
i'd like to see class action lawsuits against the .gov for violating our natural rights, but i'd settle for removing cannabis from scheduling altogether.
we should have the right to produce whatever we decide fits our need, especially since it's been medicine for eons.
in secret, they designed the rules for 502, and in doing so decided to change parameters of RCW61.5 reducing possession of processed cannabis from 24 oz to 1 oz, and eliminating personal grows completely.
that knife in the back was twisted. for tax revenue.
CO has the proper and right way, and we were lead to believe that Washington would follow Colorados example, till the lawyers played 3 card monti with our hard gained rights.
i'd like to see class action lawsuits against the .gov for violating our natural rights, but i'd settle for removing cannabis from scheduling altogether.
we should have the right to produce whatever we decide fits our need, especially since it's been medicine for eons.
The above posts address the same fears I was trying to express!
These are real World examples that are simply too real to ignore!
Oh ya this is another example of Big GOV. taking away another one of our rights!
We give you this but ....your rights must be sacrificed.
Where is the logic ......if you are a medical patient you no longer have a right to own a gun...WHAT!
Do your homework people before it is too late like it may be for some already!
Be aware!!
These are real World examples that are simply too real to ignore!
Oh ya this is another example of Big GOV. taking away another one of our rights!
We give you this but ....your rights must be sacrificed.
Where is the logic ......if you are a medical patient you no longer have a right to own a gun...WHAT!
Do your homework people before it is too late like it may be for some already!
Be aware!!
Last edited:
I think that tax revenue is just an excuse in WA. The real issue is gaining authoritarian control over filthy good for nothing stoned out hippie scum. That's the same as the legislature's waving around the spectre of the Federal boogeyman wrt the collectives. If the Feds wanted the collectives altered or shut down, there would be paperwork to that effect, so where is it?
That's the question to ask. When they try to obfuscate their way around it, you know they're lying.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jacobsu...marijuana-restrictions-have-patients-worried/
5 Reasons Washington's Proposed Medical Marijuana Restrictions Have Patients Worried
Comment Now
Follow Comments
It looks increasingly likely that Washington’s legislature will approve new restrictions on medical marijuana by the end of its current session a week from Thursday. The two leading bills both involve mandatory registration of patients, sharp reductions in the limits on possession and home cultivation, and elimination of “collective gardens,” including hundreds of dispensaries operating under that label. The general thrust of the bills is to ban the untaxed, unregulated outlets that otherwise would compete with state-licensed pot shops, which are supposed to become the main source of medical marijuana. Patients have several concerns about that plan:
1. Will the stores be ready in time? The Washington State Liquor Control Board (LCB), which is expected to issue its first marijuana cultivation licenses this week, says marijuana retailers should be open by June. But the Washington State Economic and Revenue Forecast Council, an independent agency charged with projecting tax revenue, notes that local bans and moratoriums, which Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson says are not pre-empted by state law, make hitting the LCB’s target pretty iffy. “Although LCB has indicated that it expects retail sales to start in June 2014,” says a February 19 report from the council, “local moratoria on cannabis businesses and other production uncertainties have the potential to impact the timing and amount of cannabis produced and sold. As a result, we have assumed retail sales will start in June 2015.”
That’s a month after dispensaries would be abolished by H.B. 2149, the bill approved by the state House of Representatives in February. S.B. 5887, introduced by state Sen. Ann Rivers (R-La Center), would repeal the provision allowing collective gardens as of July 15. But assuming that Washington’s pot stores experience shortages like those seen in Colorado, it is not clear that an adequate supply will be available to patients even by the middle of next year, or that they will be able to find retailers within a reasonable distance. If a patient happens to live in, say, Yakima, which has banned marijuana stores, where will he go to buy his medicine? Kari Boiter, a lobbyist who works with Americans for Safe Access, warns that “the proposed repeal dates are likely to leave patients without access.”
A Greener Today (Image: WeedMaps TV)
A Greener Today (Image: WeedMaps TV)
2. Will the stores cater to patients? The cannabis strains that best meet patients’ needs may not appeal to recreational consumers. They may be low in psychoactive THC, for example, but high in cannabidiol (CBD), which shows promise as a treatment for a wide range of disorders, including epilepsy and multiple sclerosis. “It’s not the same marijuana,” says Douglas Hiatt, a Seattle criminal defense attorney and longtime marijuana activist who opposed I-502, Washington’s legalization initiative, largely because he worried that it would hurt patients. H.B. 2149 and S.B. 5887 both would offer “medical marijuana endorsements” to pot stores that choose to serve patients, either exclusively or in addition to recreational users. The endorsements would allow registered patients to benefit from a higher purchase limit (three ounces rather than one) and an exemption from the standard sales tax. But patients worry that they will still be treated as an afterthought and may have trouble obtaining the specific varieties that are tailored to their symptoms. Boiter says legislators should put “health before happy hour.”
3. Are the ceilings on home cultivation high enough? Currently patients are allowed to grow up to 15 plants. H.B. 2149 and S.B. 5887 both would reduce the limit to six plants, although the latter bill would allow as many as 15 plants if a health professional certified the larger number was medically appropriate. The possession limit would be cut from 24 ounces to three under H.B. 2149 and to eight (with a health professional’s recommendation to that effect) under S.B. 5887. Even the lower limits may sound generous for a single person, but patients tend to consume a lot more cannabis than recreational users do, especially if they make concentrates to be taken orally. Depending on where the nearest state-licensed store is located, the prices it charges, and the selection it offers, some patients may end up growing most or all of their own medicine, in which case the six-plant limit may prove too low.
4. What about collective gardens? Legislators want to repeal the provision allowing collective gardens mainly because dispensaries have seized on it as a legal rationale, counting each customer as a temporary “member.” But the provision originally was intended as an alternative for patients who were not up to growing cannabis on their own and could not find “designated providers” to do it for them. Given the uncertainties surrounding the newly legal pot stores, some patients think they should still have the option of pooling their resources to produce medical marijuana for their own use. “For [cultivation rights] to be meaningful,” Hiatt argues, “you’ve got to allow people to grow together.”
5. What will registration mean? H.B. 2149 and S.B. 5887 both require that patients register with the state if they want to grow their own marijuana, enjoy higher purchase and possession limits, and escape part of the taxes imposed on cannabis sales. Currently there is no registry, but patients with medical recommendations have an affirmative defense against marijuana charges, a right that both bills would eliminate. Some patients are not keen to be officially identified in a central database as marijuana consumers, a fact that can have social, professional, and legal implications. Even if the Justice Department refrains from prosecuting patients for possession or home cultivation, for example, the Gun Control Act of 1968 strips all marijuana consumers of their Second Amendment rights. Under H.B. 2149, information from the patient registry can be disclosed to various people, including “law enforcement and prosecutorial officials engaged in a specific investigation involving a designated person.”
Supporters of the new restrictions argue that it makes little sense to have a parallel distribution system for patients once state-licensed marijuana stores are up and running. They also note that Jenny Durkan, the U.S. attorney for the Western District of Washington, has called the current system “not tenable” given the Justice Department’s demand for a strictly regulated market in which diversion to minors and other states is minimized. But Hiatt complains that legislators are so eager to maximize tax revenue and discourage federal intervention that they are willing to compromise the interests of patients. “They’re saying, ‘We’ll throw medical marijuana under the bus if you’ll let us get away with 502,’” he says. “People in the community here are furious. They feel like they’ve been betrayed.”
5 Reasons Washington's Proposed Medical Marijuana Restrictions Have Patients Worried
Comment Now
Follow Comments
It looks increasingly likely that Washington’s legislature will approve new restrictions on medical marijuana by the end of its current session a week from Thursday. The two leading bills both involve mandatory registration of patients, sharp reductions in the limits on possession and home cultivation, and elimination of “collective gardens,” including hundreds of dispensaries operating under that label. The general thrust of the bills is to ban the untaxed, unregulated outlets that otherwise would compete with state-licensed pot shops, which are supposed to become the main source of medical marijuana. Patients have several concerns about that plan:
1. Will the stores be ready in time? The Washington State Liquor Control Board (LCB), which is expected to issue its first marijuana cultivation licenses this week, says marijuana retailers should be open by June. But the Washington State Economic and Revenue Forecast Council, an independent agency charged with projecting tax revenue, notes that local bans and moratoriums, which Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson says are not pre-empted by state law, make hitting the LCB’s target pretty iffy. “Although LCB has indicated that it expects retail sales to start in June 2014,” says a February 19 report from the council, “local moratoria on cannabis businesses and other production uncertainties have the potential to impact the timing and amount of cannabis produced and sold. As a result, we have assumed retail sales will start in June 2015.”
That’s a month after dispensaries would be abolished by H.B. 2149, the bill approved by the state House of Representatives in February. S.B. 5887, introduced by state Sen. Ann Rivers (R-La Center), would repeal the provision allowing collective gardens as of July 15. But assuming that Washington’s pot stores experience shortages like those seen in Colorado, it is not clear that an adequate supply will be available to patients even by the middle of next year, or that they will be able to find retailers within a reasonable distance. If a patient happens to live in, say, Yakima, which has banned marijuana stores, where will he go to buy his medicine? Kari Boiter, a lobbyist who works with Americans for Safe Access, warns that “the proposed repeal dates are likely to leave patients without access.”
A Greener Today (Image: WeedMaps TV)
A Greener Today (Image: WeedMaps TV)
2. Will the stores cater to patients? The cannabis strains that best meet patients’ needs may not appeal to recreational consumers. They may be low in psychoactive THC, for example, but high in cannabidiol (CBD), which shows promise as a treatment for a wide range of disorders, including epilepsy and multiple sclerosis. “It’s not the same marijuana,” says Douglas Hiatt, a Seattle criminal defense attorney and longtime marijuana activist who opposed I-502, Washington’s legalization initiative, largely because he worried that it would hurt patients. H.B. 2149 and S.B. 5887 both would offer “medical marijuana endorsements” to pot stores that choose to serve patients, either exclusively or in addition to recreational users. The endorsements would allow registered patients to benefit from a higher purchase limit (three ounces rather than one) and an exemption from the standard sales tax. But patients worry that they will still be treated as an afterthought and may have trouble obtaining the specific varieties that are tailored to their symptoms. Boiter says legislators should put “health before happy hour.”
3. Are the ceilings on home cultivation high enough? Currently patients are allowed to grow up to 15 plants. H.B. 2149 and S.B. 5887 both would reduce the limit to six plants, although the latter bill would allow as many as 15 plants if a health professional certified the larger number was medically appropriate. The possession limit would be cut from 24 ounces to three under H.B. 2149 and to eight (with a health professional’s recommendation to that effect) under S.B. 5887. Even the lower limits may sound generous for a single person, but patients tend to consume a lot more cannabis than recreational users do, especially if they make concentrates to be taken orally. Depending on where the nearest state-licensed store is located, the prices it charges, and the selection it offers, some patients may end up growing most or all of their own medicine, in which case the six-plant limit may prove too low.
4. What about collective gardens? Legislators want to repeal the provision allowing collective gardens mainly because dispensaries have seized on it as a legal rationale, counting each customer as a temporary “member.” But the provision originally was intended as an alternative for patients who were not up to growing cannabis on their own and could not find “designated providers” to do it for them. Given the uncertainties surrounding the newly legal pot stores, some patients think they should still have the option of pooling their resources to produce medical marijuana for their own use. “For [cultivation rights] to be meaningful,” Hiatt argues, “you’ve got to allow people to grow together.”
5. What will registration mean? H.B. 2149 and S.B. 5887 both require that patients register with the state if they want to grow their own marijuana, enjoy higher purchase and possession limits, and escape part of the taxes imposed on cannabis sales. Currently there is no registry, but patients with medical recommendations have an affirmative defense against marijuana charges, a right that both bills would eliminate. Some patients are not keen to be officially identified in a central database as marijuana consumers, a fact that can have social, professional, and legal implications. Even if the Justice Department refrains from prosecuting patients for possession or home cultivation, for example, the Gun Control Act of 1968 strips all marijuana consumers of their Second Amendment rights. Under H.B. 2149, information from the patient registry can be disclosed to various people, including “law enforcement and prosecutorial officials engaged in a specific investigation involving a designated person.”
Supporters of the new restrictions argue that it makes little sense to have a parallel distribution system for patients once state-licensed marijuana stores are up and running. They also note that Jenny Durkan, the U.S. attorney for the Western District of Washington, has called the current system “not tenable” given the Justice Department’s demand for a strictly regulated market in which diversion to minors and other states is minimized. But Hiatt complains that legislators are so eager to maximize tax revenue and discourage federal intervention that they are willing to compromise the interests of patients. “They’re saying, ‘We’ll throw medical marijuana under the bus if you’ll let us get away with 502,’” he says. “People in the community here are furious. They feel like they’ve been betrayed.”
Washington House Overwhelmingly Approves Ban On Medical Marijuana Dispensaries
Last night the Washington House of Representatives approved a bill that would abolish medical marijuana dispensaries, a.k.a. “collective gardens,” and impose new restrictions on patients who use cannabis for symptom relief. H.B. 2149, which passed by a vote of 67 to 29, would thereby eliminate some of the unregulated competition for the state-licensed pot stores that are expected to start opening this summer under I-502, the legalization initiative that Washington voters approved in November 2012. Supporters of the bill, which was introduced by Rep. Eileen Cody (D-West Seattle), hope that banning dispensaries will help maximize tax revenue and mollify the feds.
The bill requires patients to buy their cannabis from the same stores that serve recreational customers, which would be the only legal sellers of medical marijuana as of May 1, 2015, when the provision allowing collective gardens would be repealed. Patients could continue to grow marijuana for their own use, but the maximum number of plants would be reduced from 15 to six (three of them flowering). The ceiling on possession by patients would be cut from 24 ounces to three. The bill instructs the state Department of Health, together with the Washington State Liquor Control Board (which is charged with regulating marijuana growers, processors, and retailers), to produce a report by November 15, 2019, on the question of whether it is appropriate to continue allowing home cultivation.
Cody’s legislation would create a “patient recognition” system that would allow cardholders to buy up to three ounces at a time (as opposed to one ounce for recreational customers), avoid paying sales taxes (a privilege addressed in a separate bill), and claim immunity from arrest for possession or cultivation within the limits set by law. Currently there is no central record of qualified patients. Patients with doctor’s recommendations have an affirmative defense against marijuana charges, meaning they can still be arrested, although not convicted. H.B. 2149 would eliminate that affirmative defense, effectively requiring qualified patients to register with the state if they want to be recognized as such.
...
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jacobsu...proves-ban-on-medical-marijuana-dispensaries/
Last night the Washington House of Representatives approved a bill that would abolish medical marijuana dispensaries, a.k.a. “collective gardens,” and impose new restrictions on patients who use cannabis for symptom relief. H.B. 2149, which passed by a vote of 67 to 29, would thereby eliminate some of the unregulated competition for the state-licensed pot stores that are expected to start opening this summer under I-502, the legalization initiative that Washington voters approved in November 2012. Supporters of the bill, which was introduced by Rep. Eileen Cody (D-West Seattle), hope that banning dispensaries will help maximize tax revenue and mollify the feds.
The bill requires patients to buy their cannabis from the same stores that serve recreational customers, which would be the only legal sellers of medical marijuana as of May 1, 2015, when the provision allowing collective gardens would be repealed. Patients could continue to grow marijuana for their own use, but the maximum number of plants would be reduced from 15 to six (three of them flowering). The ceiling on possession by patients would be cut from 24 ounces to three. The bill instructs the state Department of Health, together with the Washington State Liquor Control Board (which is charged with regulating marijuana growers, processors, and retailers), to produce a report by November 15, 2019, on the question of whether it is appropriate to continue allowing home cultivation.
Cody’s legislation would create a “patient recognition” system that would allow cardholders to buy up to three ounces at a time (as opposed to one ounce for recreational customers), avoid paying sales taxes (a privilege addressed in a separate bill), and claim immunity from arrest for possession or cultivation within the limits set by law. Currently there is no central record of qualified patients. Patients with doctor’s recommendations have an affirmative defense against marijuana charges, meaning they can still be arrested, although not convicted. H.B. 2149 would eliminate that affirmative defense, effectively requiring qualified patients to register with the state if they want to be recognized as such.
...
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jacobsu...proves-ban-on-medical-marijuana-dispensaries/
Well, yeh, trichrider, but the legislature adjourned after doing nothing.
http://blog.seattlepi.com/marijuana...ul-in-washington-will-feds-storm-collectives/
Durgan, the US Attorney in Eastern WA, does have a fair amount of independence, but she does not speak for the DoJ as a whole. Until there's something more definitive from higher up wrt the collectives, they're all just blowing smoke. I'm confident that the Feds will accept much less than the squeeze play the legislature is trying to invoke. They certainly have here in CO.
As this plays out, the CO model seems to be superior, not allowing for much legislative tinkering with the Will of the People.
Just reading the text of A64 lets prohibitionists know that they're irrevocably beaten, stuck with uncontrollable legal weed because of personal growing provisions. The Obama Admin knows it, too. That's not true in WA, so they're still trying to have it their way, or as close as they can get. If retail weed is $100/ eighth & the black market continues to thrive, why, they'll have "proven" that legalization doesn't work, at least in their own minds.
As Colorado's success becomes more obvious, they'll eventually discover that they're pissing into the wind. If not on their own, then the voters will tell 'em.
http://blog.seattlepi.com/marijuana...ul-in-washington-will-feds-storm-collectives/
Durgan, the US Attorney in Eastern WA, does have a fair amount of independence, but she does not speak for the DoJ as a whole. Until there's something more definitive from higher up wrt the collectives, they're all just blowing smoke. I'm confident that the Feds will accept much less than the squeeze play the legislature is trying to invoke. They certainly have here in CO.
As this plays out, the CO model seems to be superior, not allowing for much legislative tinkering with the Will of the People.
Just reading the text of A64 lets prohibitionists know that they're irrevocably beaten, stuck with uncontrollable legal weed because of personal growing provisions. The Obama Admin knows it, too. That's not true in WA, so they're still trying to have it their way, or as close as they can get. If retail weed is $100/ eighth & the black market continues to thrive, why, they'll have "proven" that legalization doesn't work, at least in their own minds.
As Colorado's success becomes more obvious, they'll eventually discover that they're pissing into the wind. If not on their own, then the voters will tell 'em.
- Status
