- The Weed Blog https://www.theweedblog.com
Share.

I-502 Does Not Create A Driving While Under The Influence Charge With A 0ng/ml Per Se Limit

86

marijuana duii drugged driving per se zero tolerance

By Alex Newhouse

Sensible Washington and the No on I-502 campaign officially maintain that I-502 creates a 0 tolerance DUI. No on I-502 states:

“Even worse: the zero tolerance clause for those under age 21 (refusing to acknowledge that you can legally possess medical cannabis in our state under the age of 21). Drivers in this age bracket will be guilty of a DUID with even the smallest amount of cannabis in their system, meaning that a failed test and an innocent-DUID could take place a week or further after last consumption.” http://www.nooni502.com/wordpress/about-no-on-i-502

Sensible Washington States: “It mandates a zero-tolerance driving policy for those under 21 (Sec. 31., Page 46). This is unethical policy, and will lead to prosecution of those aged 16-21 simply for having consumed cannabis days or even weeks before (this zero tolerance policy is the only provision of the initiative that alters current law for those under 21). A DUID on a person’s record can affect their lives forever. This limit appears to ignore the fact that individuals aged 18-21 are allowed under state law to use doctor-recommended medical cannabis.” http://sensiblewashington.org/blog/

Steve Sarich has called me a liar on more than one occasion. On the Observer’s website, he wrote: “Mr. Newhouse is lying. The wording in the initiative ABSOLUTELY sets a zero tolerance limit for those 16-20 years of age. This was addressed at the debate.” http://cwuobserver.com/article.php?id=74

So what is it? Am I blatantly and intentionally lying?

Let’s begin with Part V of Initiative 502. It is here, at the end of the initiative, that the proposed amendments to our DUI laws are found. By I-502’s own page numbers, Part V begins on page 46 and continues on until page 63. It is a lot of reading. You can find I-502 with these page numbers here: http://www.newapproachwa.org/sites/newapproachwa.org/files/I-502%20bookmarked.pdf

Section 31 of the initiative amends RCW 46.20.308. Douglas Hiatt cited these amendments as authority for the zero tolerance DUI theory. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tdawsEVGv8g&feature=youtu.be. Start the video at about 1:31:00. You can read RCW 46.20.308 as it currently exists here: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=46.20.308. This particular part of the RCW concerns implied consent, notice requirements and procedure following a breath test, blood test, or refuse. Read it carefully. Do not let the language of .00 throw you off, even though it states it a number of times. This section of the code will state as follows after I-502 amends it:

“. . . a test or tests of the person’s blood or breath is administered and the test results indicates that the alcohol concentrations of the pe rson’s breath or blood .08 or more, or the THC concentration of the person’s blood is 5.00 or more, if the person is age twenty-one ore over, or that the alcohol concentration of the person’s breath or blood is 0.02 or more, or the THC concentration of the person’s blood is above 0.00, if the person is under the age of twenty-one, or the person refuses to submit to a test . . . .”

Please take note that it specifically states in black and white, “IF THE PERSON IS UNDER THE AGE OF TWENTY-ONE.” So, in section 31 of I-502, there is no support for a 0 tolerance DUI.

In Section 32 of I-502, which begins on page 53, RCW 46.20.3101 is amended. It only concerns license suspensions. This isn’t a statute from which criminal charges flow, just like criminal charges will not flow from I-502’s RCW 46.20.308. Again, don’t let the language fool you. It states:

“In the case of an incident where a person under the age of twenty-one has submitted to or been administered a test or tests indicating that the alcohol concentration of the person’s breath or blood was .02 or more, or that the THC concentration of the person’s blood was above 0.00.”

Section 33 of I-502 amends RCW 46.61.502 beginning on page 54. This is our DUI statute. http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=46.61.502. Criminal charges flow from this statute. Notice that there is not a single place within I-502’s amended statute that contains the 0.00ng language other than when it talks about samples of blood or breath taken more than two hours after driving. What this means is that those samples obtained after the 2 hour window can be used as evidence of what the blood or breath content was during within 2 hours after driving.

Let’s skip over Section 34 of I-502 for now, which begins on page 56.

Section 35 of I-502, which begins on page 57, amends RCW 46.61.504. Criminal charges flow from this statute. It is essentially a mirror image of RCW 46.61.502 and has the same penalties. It makes it a crime to be in physical control over a motor vehicle while impaired or if your blood or breath contains the prohibited amount of alcohol in it. The prohibited amount of alcohol is .08. I-502 makes the prohibited amount of THC 5ng.

On to Section 36 of I-502! We’re almost done. This section amends RCW 46.61.50571. It can be found in its current form here: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=46.61.50571. This statute simply mandates when a defendant charged under 502, 503, and 504 appear before a judicial officer in person. Notice that the statute as it currently exists and as it would exist under I-502 takes pains in differentiating between those over 21 and those under 21. No criminal charges flow from this statute.

Section 37 of I-502 amends RCW 46.61.506. This statute concerns what evidence may be considered and how it is to be presented. Notice that in I-502’s section 506, it completely lacks any mention of 0.00 ng/ml. This is significant because this statute talks about what evidence can be used to show impairment. 506 as it currently exists can be found here: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=46.61.506. No criminal charges flow from this statute. If you don’t read anything else in this section, please read 4(c). It states:

“Nothing in this section shall be deemed to prevent the subject of the test from challenging the reliability or accuracy of the test, the reliability or functioning of the instrument, or any maintenance procedures . . . . such challenges may be considered by the trier of fact in determining what weight to give to the test result.”

Now we finally come to section 34 of I-502. It begins on page 56. It amends RCW 46.61.503 and criminal charges do flow from this statute. The statute as it currently exists can be found here: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=46.61.503. This statute basically says that even if a minor under 21 is not impaired, he can still be charged with a violation of this section if he has more than 0.00ng/ml. This section cares nothing about impairment, and is not RCW 46.61.502 and 504’s equivalent. Read subsection 4 of this section very carefully. It states: “A violation of this section is a misdemeanor.” The title of this section as it currently exists is: “Driver Under 21 Consuming Alcohol.” Considering the products on the market now that contain alcohol and that are legally available to minors, the amendments to this section proposed by I-502 are appropriate. They will discourage minors from using marijuana, hanging around friends who use marijuana, and driving after using marijuana.

What is the difference between a violation of this 503 and a violation of 502/504? A misdemeanor has a maximum sentence of 90 days and a $1000 fine. This misdemeanor here is often resolved without a conviction, especially on a first offense. There is no mandatory minimum amount of jail time either. What are the penalties for violating 502/504? They are very severe. They can be found here: http://www.courts.wa.gov/newsinfo/index.cfm?fa=newsinfo.displayContent&theFile=content/duigrid/index. A DUI is a gross misdemeanor.

There you have it. I-502 does not create a Driving While Under the Influence Charge with a 0ng/ml per se limit.

Share.

About Author

86 Comments

  1. how does one tell how “high you are” what instrument is used to determine whether you’re 5ng or more/less, and how does it work, i’ve been smoking MJ for 10ish years now, and with that, i would assume that this could skew the tests, like it would with a UA (if i recall correctly, i cannot piss clean from a UA even after staying sober for a month or two because i have THC stored in my fat cells)

  2. I’m guessing that insurance companies treat a 503 conviction the same as a 502/504 conviction with regards to increased premiums… And I doubt employers checking criminal background will appreciate the difference.
    And there are medical patients under 21 who use cannabis under the advise of their doctor… So is a 20 year old medical patient who medicated yesterday more of a risk than a 21 year old recreational user who smoked 3 hours ago??

  3. Let me see if I have this right…looking at the current law…
    Section 502 is the DUI section, which sets a limit of 0.08 for everyone who is driving.
    Section 503 adds penalties for those under 21 who have over 0.02 of alcohol and are driving or have physical control of a vehicle.
    Section 504 is the physical control section, which has a limit of 0.08 for anyone who is in physical control of a vehicle.
    So essentially 502=dui,504=physical control, 503=dui/physical control for under 21 who are above 0.02 but under 0.08.

    So even if 503 has a lesser penalty, how do you argue that it is not a dui? Especially when there are signs and awareness campaigns that say therebis zero tolerance for drinking & driving for those under 21?

  4. If 503 is not about DUIs, then what IS it about? Your article is so difficult to follow despite your efforts to spell it out because you leave out bits of information that are needed for clarity.
    Why don’t you tell us specifically what 502, 503, and 504 do?

  5. Tylenol counts as a drug too. If you take a Tylenol for your headache but swerve a little bit because you were changing the radio station are you going to get a DUI for tylenol?

  6. real people for real reform on

    rich? what does being rich have to do with anything? you’re a confused person who is following the herd…bahhhh

    I-502 = DUI’s for anybody who smokes more then just a joint on the weekend…keep following that carrot the man is dangling in front of you, its going to take you straight to jail for a bowl you smoked the night before!

    VOTE NO on I-502!!!

  7. your articel is fine and well, but you are mis-led about the 18 and over part of the the law. the 18 and over rule applies to NON-PATIENTS (rec users) at the bottom of the innititive I-502 it clearly states what parts of I 502 will be added to the current innititive 69.50 and it is mostly concered with the structure and licincing and reg. of the cannabis outlets, and the producers and processors.

  8. when its legal we’ll tweak it a little .stop reading crap and light 1 up .you seem uptite .we’ll be blowin smoke in your face in10 days lol

  9. Almost every weed smoker out there would test positive for 5 ng. It doesn’t take that much to get there.

  10. And you are thinking that all cops use the same test, lab. or what ever?? How do you know? Have you ever watched a blood sample being tested? It is either ACTIVE T.H.C. or metabolites. Not both. Metabolites are after brake down.

  11. No it does not create. What it does create is a five nano-grams per liter limit, that I don’t think the law thugs have a right to know in the first place. Unless I accidentally killed someone. Then test me now and see what my concentration is and test my driving skills. I dare you! Any time anywhere I will out drive you.

  12. I have been interested in finding out more about the field test law enforcement would use to enforce I 502. Recently a radio show host on cannabis Nation Radio had the procedure done to determine the amount of cannabis in his system. he ended up with a $700.00 bill for his efforts.
    At that rate 20 random field tests could potentially be the price of a car.
    There is no precedent for the wide testing of the testing procedure, and most likely many may get acquitted, due to the lack of evidence the field tests are actually accurate.
    They can’t expect people to not question the science, and be guinea pigs until they “tweak it out.”
    Any information about the test specifically would be appreciated for more research.

  13. confusedaboutthis on

    Does this mean that a person under age 21 who is found to have a thc blood level between 0 and 5 may have his or her license revoked for 3 months but can’t be convicted for DUID using this blood level?

  14. Revised Code of Washington: “46.61.502(1) A person is guilty of driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or any drug if the person drives a vehicle within this state:
    (b) While the person is under the influence of or affected by intoxicating liquor or any drug; or
    (c) While the person is under the combined influence of or affected by intoxicating liquor and any drug.”

    Mimi- Just in case you don’t understand what this language means I will translate for you. Any drug refers to marijuana as well and in this context it means that if the test results show levels of active THC or inactive THC-COOH above zero nanograms per milliliter of whole blood volume (0.00000000000 ng/mL) you are by letter of the law driving under the influence and impaired. Meaning test results showing any amount of THC in your system mean the driver is de facto guilty of DUI and that is enough for a jury to convict.

  15. Apparently some troll is pretending to be various I-502 supporters and campaign members and is going around saying they want articles taken down and trying to cancel events. He’s wasting his time, lol.

  16. I agree with you on the need for further impairment study, and I-502 earmarks a portion of the tax revenue specifically for marijuana research. The 5ng per se limit in I-502 is based primarily on a peer reviewed Australian study because hardly any unbiased research comes out of the US.
    There are two main reason that I-502 includes a DUI limit in my view: 1) Fear-mongering about stoned driving is one of the easiest ways to defeat a legalization bill and is part of the reason Prop 19 failed.
    2) To discourage people from driving high.
    Practically speaking, nothing is likely to change in terms of the number of people actually arrested and convicted of marijuana DUI and people do currently get busted for marijuana DUI. Here is the way the process works:
    The officer has to catch the person violating a traffic law. He then has to observe objective signs of impairment, which give him probable cause for an arrest under suspicion of DUI. He can then take you in for a breathalizer. If you pass that, and he still thinks you’re impaired, he can take you to a hospital for a blood draw. You get sent home, the blood is sent to a tox lab. Later when the prosecutor reviews the arrest report, he then decides whether to pay the money to have the blood tested. This is how it happens now, and none of that changes under I-502.
    What does change under 502 is that when the case goes to trial, if the test result was over 5ng of active THC, then that result in and of itself is to be considered by the jury that the state considers you impaired. It is similar to the .08 level for alcohol in that regard (as is the “zero tolerance” misdemeanor charge).
    In a fairly counter-intuitive way, this could actually help a lot of people who are charged with marijuana DUI. Sine the vast majority of people arrested for marijuana DUI are under 5ng of active THC, they will now have the ability to argue that they were under the legal limit. Also, since 502 makes the distinction for the first time in our law between active THC and carboxy THC, we will no longer see the absurd prosecutions based on carboxy alone.
    I agree that in the long run weed should not be treated exactly the same as alcohol, because I consider it to be far less harmful and less dangerous. But we need to prove that to the public first. I think 502 will give us the chance to do that.

  17. It applies to everyone equally. Occasional user, heavy user, or patient. Under DUI law, having a prescription for any medicine is no defense against an impaired driving charge. However, if you aren’t exhibiting signs of impairment and getting pulled over for DUI now, you will have nothing to worry about after 502 passes.

  18. So the bottom line as Jodie Emery stated to me is that Legal Medical Patients retain all of their current protections and limits(even if under 21). The DUID blood test can and does distinguish between the non active metabolites and active metabolites of someone that is under the influence at the time of the test. Inactive doesn’t matter and active will result in a DUI. A recreational user Under 21 with active metabolites will be subject to potential criminal charges especially if operating a motor vehicle.

    that is all confusing as heck but the above paragraph is what I finally determined after reading carefully. Is the above paragraph correct or am I still confused?

  19. Marilyn Greene Campbell on

    I live in Tennessee and my husband I am looking at 5 to 40 years in the federal penitentiary for growing MMJ. We would happily ride the bus in Seattle rather than spend the rest of our lives in jail. I am 62 and he is very ill. Wanted to give you an outsider perspective.

  20. Wow your the only guy on here who I finally understand. Thanks for breaking it down clearly and calmly. Ok first of all I get it that this law has absolutely nothing to do with MJ patients cool. I still think the impairment limit is all screwed up because of the legal precedent it sets on blood limit and impairment. Its not necessarily zero tolerance now because it is not stated in state law yet right, in terms of a DUI? I mean I know no one who has ever gotten a DUI for weed (lol). I also do not like the lower limit for those between the ages of 18-21. If it does pass I would like to see further research into the impairment issue leading to an appropriate amendment. In my crazy world I would like a stoned driving license where you have to do a series of rigorous driving tests to be able to drive stoned :]

  21. why is this measure so poorly written that no one can agree on what it actually does?! I can only conclude that it indeed criminalizes +5 for drivers. I do know that +5 is commonly in users’ blood long after ingestion.

    NEVER give the police any wiggle room for a bust, because cops get free fed $ for their anti-drug time and toys and they hate to give em up.

  22. Boy, this discussion really makes a guy wonder why medical professionals aren’t defending the criminally accused in court.

  23. @Mimi I have read more than once from you, that we don’t currently have a zero limit or tolerance set for driving. If that’s so, what’s the current limit? Please do tell. You don’t have an answer, do you? I will not for one minute believe the law sets a limit in which you can be under while driving, but not allow the possession of something to get you to that limit. That is contradicting. If there is a zero limit now, it’s because you should not be smoking it period. You think we need an initiative to enforce a legal limit? Check out NV, there’s a 2ng/mL and it’s still illegal. Whether this initiative passes or not does not guarantee whether a limit will be set or not. I guess opponents as yourself will only agree this initiative is an improvement if we become like NV first?

  24. Whoa, sorry to hear you were attacked for asking a question. I’ve been tabling at a lot of events and taken a lot of abuse myself but it’s been a goal of mine to engage everyone. I think things are much different online where douchebaggery is the norm.

  25. Well your sentiment is clear, but it’s still important for your side to be accurate with its argument yes? To do otherwise serves to undermine your authority.

  26. There’s no zero tolerance “per se” law now… more accurate would be to say that current law is effectively zero tolerance. What people object to about the DUI provision is that the 5ng “per se” limit puts a stipulation in the law, similar to what there is for alcohol, that the state considers you impaired if you are over 5ng of active THC. Of course, contrary to what many of them say, you retain your ability to defend yourself in court. There wouldn’t be an entire industry of alcohol DUI defense attorneys if this was not the case as virtually all of their clients are over the legal limit. It still goes to a jury, and the lawyer can always challenge the veracity of the test, whether proper procedure was followed etc.

    What they also don’t realize is that under current law, all it takes to prove someone was impaired in court is the officer’s word + a test result… for any number. This is why current law is “effectively” zero tolerance. People are convicted of DUI now for just carboxy THC because juries have no idea which kind of THC causes impairment or how much. I-502 will at least give defense attorney’s a chance to argue that their clients were under the legal limit, as the clients are in the vast majority of marijuana DUI cases are.

  27. You are incorrect about only “legal” cannabis being legal. I assume you mean that only cannabis bought from regulated retail stores will be legal. This is not true. Reading the initiative is no good unless you understand it.

    I will quote it from the I-502 .pdf (I sure wish I could copy/paste it). p. 26

    “(3) The possession, by a person twenty-one years of age or older, os usable marijuana or marijuana-infused products in amounts that do not exceed those set forth in section 15(3) of this act is not a violation of this section, this chapter, or any other provision of Washington state law.”

    This fully legalizes the possession of marijuana for any adult over the age of 21 regardless of the source. For the sake of your own credibility, you should refrain from insisting that people “read the bill” when it is clear to everyone who actually has read it that you don’t understand it.

  28. The taxes and regulations in 502 apply only to the recreational retail stores that 502 is sets up. You have to read the definitions sections of both I-502 and the medical marijuana law to see what I mean. “Marijuana producer” or “processor” or “retailer” are specifically defined in 502. The regulations and taxes apply only in cases where these terms are mentioned. No where in I-502 will you see reference to “designated providers” or “qualifying patients” as are defined in the medical marijuana law.

    I don’t blame you for not understanding the way the law works, but you shouldn’t go around repeating things that aren’t true.

  29. I totally understand. If I didn’t read legislation in my day job, I would have no idea how to read any complicated bill. I-502 sets up a regulatory scheme for recreational marijuana distribution, which is a very complicated prospect. Some think that simply repealing all penalties for marijuana is the better way to go, but the fact is, most people are worried about completely unregulated marijuana, youth access, drugged driving etc. Right now, marijuana is considered by most to be far worse than hard alcohol and our laws reflect that. Once we legalize some possession and people see that the sky doesn’t fall, we can take further steps.

    I haven’t seen any of the supposed lies of the “Yes on 502” side. I’ve heard a lot of people calling them liars (perhaps I should say “us”, as I have volunteered for them at events, but I don’t want to overstate my involvement either) but as I looked into every claim, I found all to be based on misunderstandings or outright untruths.

    Most people are just confused, but there are people out there like Steve Sarich and Doug Hiatt claiming to be experts and convincing a lot of people of a lot of false things.

    One quick note on bill reading. New sections are always labeled “new section”. If it is not labeled “new section” is it CURRENT law that is amended in some way. To see the amendments, you have to look for underlined text, which is new, and text with a strikethrough, which is being removed by the bill. This is part of the reason bills are usually long, because they have to quite the entire text of the section they are amending.

  30. I-502 amends the uniform controlled substances act, which is RCW 69.50. The medical marijuana law is RCW 69.51a, which is NOT amended by I-502. All of the taxes and regulations proposed in 502 apply only to the regulated retail producers, processors, and retailers. You have to read the definitions sections to find out what these terms specifically mean. “Designated providers” and “qualifying patients”, which are the terms specifically defined in the medical marijuana law, are NOT legally impacted in any way by I-502.

  31. Alex Newhouse on

    By the way, I don’t know why what I am posting ends up looking so choppy. It looks fine before I hit post.

  32. Alex Newhouse on

    With all due respect, that is a poor
    translation.

    By the way, just by looking at your
    comments here it appears you have missed the point of the article. The point
    is, I-502 does not create a zero tolerance DUI. Sensible Washington and No on
    I-502 continue to say it does.

    The language of I-502 has been out for
    at least a year and I have been openly complaining about this issue for several
    months. This is not the first time I have taken issue with how Sensible Washington
    interprets I-502. I know you of all people know this.

    I have been called a liar because I have stated
    that I-502 doesn’t create a 0 tolerance DUI. I don’t
    mind the changes to our DUI law that I-502 proposes and you hate that, I get it. But am I a liar?

  33. I just saw you on youtube.

    Your fucking nuts, and I’m done trying to convince you of anything. Believe whatever irrational nonsense you want to.

  34. HowInitiativesWork on

    I’m glad I could help, and I’m glad you’re taking the time to get the facts for yourself.

  35. annoyed with the bs on

    This is my point, initiatives are written in legalese, and even myself (a college graduate) could not understand how this modified or affected medical patients (outside of the driving aspects, which were pretty clear to me). My degree was in science, not law. I’ve asked that particular question for 6 months and have been verbally attacked for it by initiative supporters, but no one has addressed my question until now, so thank you!

    What myself-and other voters-hear, is what someone’s opinion of it is. The information I have been bombarded with on this initiative has been broad and misleading on both sides of the debate. It has also been wrought with half-truths, lies, and downright attacks.

    How is a voter supposed to determine which way to vote?

    I still have grave concerns over the arbitrary limits and how these affect patients (as well as the dangerous door it opens to all Rx), but your answer has swayed me back to more research before making a final voting decision. So again, thank you.

  36. Translation: He or his parents better be able to afford a damn good lawyer, or else he is screwed! This will be on his record for years to come and even if he is innocent there will be no way to protect him. And we all know by now that the claims NAW is making about how long active thc stays in the system is a bunch of hooey…..

  37. Just because there is not mention of a law in a new law, doesn’t mean the new will not change the old. It has and does, all the time. You are using false assumption here, and it defies logic.

  38. Oh, and I have a degree in medicine, but that doesn’t mean I can vouch for every nurse. But I can say that as a nurse, I HAVE read this initiative numerous times and it is terrible! Now who would YOU believe?

  39. This is just not true for patients, and those at NAW know it. This law would remove the legal driving privileges of all cannabis patients regardless of whether they are impaired or not. The studies used to justify the numbers clearly state that the 5 ng should not be used for measuring impairment as there are too many confounding factors. More study is needed. There is no reason to give the police MORE reason to arrest innocent patients. NO on I-502!!!!!

  40. It’s really confusing because it’s not a single subject initiative, and therefore violates the single subject rule. Which is why a single subject rule was made, so that this kind of thing would not happen. We need to kill 502 under that rule.

  41. Really? I know nothing of the initiative process in this state, and the medical laws? You are showing your ignorance right off the bat. I wrote I-1208, a MUCH better initiative than 502. I’ve seen how DUI’s work, and I obviously read much better than you do, or you would not have just inserted your foot in your mouth.

  42. What is interesting is that you criminalist types are so gung-ho for this. That usually means one thing: money. It means attorneys stand to make a ton of it, as would local governments, and so, if you are in support, then I’d say 502 is a very bad thing indeed.
    A degree in criminology does not mean you know more about anything, it means you passed the classes. So did a nurse who sat below me in theater, who also happened to cheat on her tests. It does not mean I would let her near any of my family members.
    What is indisputable is that “zero” tolerance is a damn lie, and 5ng is based on studies which clearly state that the number should NOT be used for impairment testing. THAT is indisputable, but I guess it’s okay, because you ignore it, right?

  43. No, you just know nothing about:

    The initiative process in WA.
    The medical marijuana laws you claim to hold dear.
    How a DUID works.
    Basic reading comprehension.

  44. I have degree in criminology my dear. I know more about cops than you do.

    And right now, Impairment + a positive test for any THC (COOH included) = DUID. Believe whatever you want, but if your interested in facts, this is indisputable.

    I’m done.

  45. Lies and garbage. Show me exactly where in the rcw’s that there is zero tolerance. You are full of it.

  46. The limit is not zero, stop lying or show me where exactly in the RCW’s that there is a zero anything in regards to cannabis right now.
    Obviously you can’t put two paragraphs together if you think “PC” is going to save you from arrest from the cops. What a fool you are!

  47. Alex Newhouse on

    The author, Alex Newhouse, did not request that this article be removed!!! What is going on??!!

  48. HowInitiativesWork on

    Initiatives, ALL initiatives, modify specific laws. If a law is not mentioned in an initiative, it doesn’t change.

    I don’t really follow your logic, it’s like you’re reading an initiative to lower car tab fees, and demanding to know how it doesn’t change the color of stop signs and traffic lights.

    502 doesn’t amend or alter existing medical marijuana laws in any way – and here’s the proof:

    It doesn’t mention them, in any way. No mention, no change. Initiatives only “specifically state” laws they are targeting for change.

    I don’t know how to be any clearer than that.

  49. HowInitiativesWork on

    The initiative doesn’t change medical marijuana laws IN ANY WAY. If a n a initiative doesn’t explicitly mention a law its changing – that law doesn’t change.

    If your medical patient, nothing changes. The license system and possession limits under 502 DO NOT APPLY TO MEDICAL MARIJUANA PATIENTS. Collective garden remain legal. Your 24oz limit remains in place. You keep your affirmative defense.

    As for DUID – we already have zero tolerance. 502 is a substantial improvement.

  50. annoyed with the bs on

    Someone please show me EXACTLY WHERE in this initiative it states that the medical marijuana patient can still have a homegrow. I’ve read the initiative 10 times and still don’t see any mention of this EXCEPT where it amends or replaces the current law.

    And from what I gleaned from reading this initiative 10 times, is that there is a zero tolerance for under 21. It also removes my right to a trial and paves the way for all Rx considered “sleepy” to be included.

    Anyone who lives east of the Cascades can attest to LEO cherry picking and profiling. To say they won’t is delusional. They do and they will. Read the studies on profiling for yourself. Read the initiative for yourself. Don’t be a spoonfed idiot voter, make a decision on your own.

    I will be voting NO on I-502, based on my reading of the initiative it’s bad law.

  51. Alex Newhouse on

    I know the law can be confusing, especially DUI law. I did my best to break it down for everybody and explain.

  52. LawsAreConfusing on

    And today, if a teen smoked a joint 4 days ago is blood tested (which is unlikely to the point of absurdity), and tests positive for COOH. BUSTED!

    502 is a massive improvement. I don’t understand how you cant see this.

  53. I’ve read the whole thing four times. Perhaps you need to read a few books on criminal law…

    Ever heard of probable cause for arrest? If you have 3 grams of non-specific marijuana in a small container in your pocket, an officer LACKS EVEN THE MOST BASIC SUSPICION THAT YOU ARE IN VIOLATION OF THE LAW. There’s no way to differentiate between medical cannabis and retail cannabis.

    I don’t think you know how laws are enforced…how, exactly, would a person get arrested for medical cannabis? An officer smelling marijuana, seeing a small jar of marijuana, seeing rolled joints, seeing a bong – ALL of these things would no longer be PC for arrest, because their presence in no way indicates that a crime is being committed. How is this so hard for you to understand?!?

    I have to assume your attempting to mislead people, because only a fool would actually believe LEOs are going to run around inventing PC to arrest medical patients – all so they can present their affirmative defense in court and get the case tossed (a defense which 502 doesn’t change).

    And as for DUID – the limit now is ZERO, and includes COOH. 502 limits it to active THC and raises the limit to 5ng. I understand its not perfect BUT HOW ON EARTH COULD YOU THINK THIS IS ANYTHING BUT IMPROVEMENT? It boggles the mind.

    Your claims and complaints defy all logic.

  54. Alex Newhouse on

    If his constitutional rights were
    honored and the proper procedure followed, then you are correct. If it is his
    first conviction, he’ll probably be offered some form of a stipulated order of continuance
    to avoid a conviction and probation.

    Even if the teenager is convicted,
    there is no mandatory jail time.

    Contrast this with a DUI. Huge
    difference.

  55. Alex Newhouse on

    Tony,
    Please read the last 3 paragraphs. Driving under the Influence, or DUI, is a gross misdemeanor with far more serious penalties than what comes with a conviction under 46.61.503. With each DUI you get within 7 years, the penalties multiply a great deal.
    With respect to a 503 conviction, it is not a DUI. It is a misdemeanor that doesn’t impact subsequent DUI convictions. Its penalties are substantially less. The charge is often times disposed of in some way that does not involve a conviction, especially on a 1st offense.
    One is a DUI, one is is not. The one that is not has zero tolerance and is appropriate.

  56. is it just me???…or is this article confusing as fuck….you cant put lipstick ona pig and call it pretty (unless you have a swine fetish maybe)….im talking both 502 and teh lawyer that just confused the fuck outa me….

  57. You might want to read the whole thing. 502 has no plan for actual implementation of point of sale or distribution. You might want to ask why, as well as read the blurbs about only “legal” cannabis being legal, meaning purchased from these point of sale places that will not exist. 502 changes nothing except an unscientific thc level. VOTE NO!!!
    502 is going to make Washington one of the most UNfriendly medical cannabis states in the nation, and won’t do anything for real legalization. Case in point, cannabis remains on the state’s Controlled Substances Act.

  58. I have no clue what this article is saying. All the passages from 502 indicate that for people under 21 there is zero tolerance (THC levels above 0.0). Yet the conclusion is that there is no zero tolerance.

  59. It is zero tolerance today for everyone. D-uh. What don’t you understand. Kids under 21 can’t drink or smoke weed legally.

  60. juicyjuicyjuice on

    You’re thinking of inactive THC, the stuff that sticks around in your blood long enough that you could fail a drug test days after toking. I-502 explicitly sets the standard at 0.05 ng/ml of ACTIVE THC metabolites – the stuff that actually makes you high. Waiting around until you’re sober will ensure that you’re road worthy and legal.

  61. Moldy didn’t have to be so, ahem, blunt about it, but it’s solid advice. Toking up in the car is pure suicide. Do you have any idea how easy it is to catch these people? Cops love that shit. Don’t smoke and drive, period. Enjoy a little Cherry Garcia and South Park until you sober up.

  62. its not about smoking in car someone could fail zero tolerance a month after last smoking. this is fucked up.

  63. Well, if you’re a dumb fuck teenager that smokes in his/her car then you deserve it. Don’t be a dumb fuck teenager and listen to your elders… Don’t smoke in your car.

  64. Iowa NICER –
    Is Iowa so nice we still jail non-violent adults for a substance safer than 1000’s of legal drugs that may kill you instantly or slowly? Because of the reefersad agents of Lucifer running the statehouse chance of reform are slim…… http://youtu.be/9szOHy3vRPw

  65. TiredOfTheLies on

    Unfortunately, this article is based in reality and relies on facts. The no on 502ers have no time for either.

    Facts and reality really get in the way of the narrative. Especially a paranoid, self-serving and absurd narrative.

    I keep thinking the No’s have reached the limits of political dishonesty – but they keep outdoing themselves. These people would make Karl Rove proud.

    For gods sake, read the initiative – and think for yourselves. Everything “No on 502” says is nothing more than preposterous manipulation – their claims are backed by nothing but greed.

    No initiative is perfect, but 502 is dam close. If its passes, Washington state will be the MOST CANNABIS FRIENDLY JURISDICTION ON EARTH.

    Better than Amsterdam. Better than Spain. Better than California.

    Politics is about compromise. Mainstream voters will NEVER support the totally unregulated free-for-all pot-friendly 502 opponents claim as goal, and reason for opposing 502.

    Get real, get the facts – and VOTE YES on I-502

  66. wait so it does have zero tolerance for under 21 just that the penalty might be a little less than for adults???

    this is bullshit. NO ZERO TOLERANCE EVER!!!

Leave A Reply