A “New Approach” to (Pseudo) Legalization.

A recently-emerged group, New Approach Washington (NAW), has filed an initiative to the Legislature for the “legalization” of marijuana in Washington state. The goal of this initiative is to “create a tightly regulated system that generates tax revenue for state and local governments”. Despite their belief that “Washington should stop wasting law enforcement resources on adults who use marijuana”, the initiative, if passed, would only remove penalties for people 21 and older (retaining a college black market), and only for possessing up to an ounce. The State Liquor Control Board would regulate the production and distribution. Growing at home (regardless of the amount) would still be illegal, and distribution would be limited to state-licensed stores. “Stringent advertising, location, and license eligibility restrictions” would apply.

With all due respect to the people behind this effort, it’s far from an ideal example of marijuana policy reform.

First, there’s the issue of federal pre-emption. In a conflict between Federal law and state law, Federal takes precedence. Federal law continues to state that marijuana possession and distribution of any kind is illegal; Given that the initiative sets up distribution systems through the State’s Liquor Control Board, it prompts the Federal Government to interfere by refusing to allow state employees to contribute in this system (similar to how they threatened to arrest state employees if the recent medical law passed). Even if not an issue, the distribution system setups a positive conflict with federal law, meaning if this initiative passes, the Feds will have the legal authority to come in and shut down any operation breaking Federal law (any and all production and distribution of marijuana). This would cause the passing of this initiative to be ineffective and inconsequential, especially given the rest of the language. Simply put, it’s a waste of time. With the distribution system removed, you’re left with only minor decriminalization – a step forward, but a studder step at best.

Then, there is the incorporated weight limitations mentioned earlier. Having a defined 1 ounce limit on cannabis isn’t ideal, and perpetuates the failed policy of prohibition for anyone who possesses over an ounce – Anyone growing even a single plant. This leads to one of the absurdities of this initiative, and possibly the most disappointing; the fact that only state-regulated entities, not the average un-licensed individual, would be allowed to grow the “legalized” plant. This is unacceptable as a platform for reform, and takes the herb out of the hands of everyone except the government, the very entity we’ve had to fight with for so long to make even the most basic progress in policy reform.

This initiative would also impose blood tests on those suspected of driving under the influence of marijuana, to determine the THC content in the driver’s blood; 5 ng/mL and over would be above the legal limit. People suffering increased risk of DUI charges just for having THC in their system – resulting in a permanent black mark on their record – creates entirely new problems. This inflicts additional stress upon our average citizen-consumers and our patients by pressuring them to choose between their medication and/or safe recreational substance of choice, and the option of traveling independently, using their own vehicle. This will perpetuate the people’s fear of law enforcement officers, furthering the strain on the relationship between police and cannabis-consuming citizens. This is an issue because we don’t have any solid way of determining whether someone is still “high” on marijuana, or if the DUI they’ll be receiving is from a joint they smoked hours ago. The science just isn’t there to support such a limit.

Theoretically, certain parts of this initiative will bring positive change – Almost any change at this point will likely be welcomed, considering our current situation. In this instance, if it’s the only marijuana reform option on the ballot, it would be hard for us to advocate voting against this initiative, though this is something that should have deep consideration put into it given the possible destructive nature of the proposed DUI limit. However, this is a bad example for future reform attempts and, if passed, will need to be altered quickly to help truly overturn prohibition – possibly through a voter referendum.

It’s understandable to play politics when building an initiative that needs to appeal to voters, but you also need to look at the human aspect, and focus on what will finally end the suffering caused by prohibition and truly bring lasting change. If Prop 19 showed us anything, it’s that straying so desperately far from your own supporters can be detrimental.

This of course is just one of many steps we will have to take towards our ultimate goal of doing the humane and ethical thing of full legalization.

It’s just a shame the step is so misguided.

 

 

TheJointBlog