Breaking News:URGENT: Call Congress TODAY to Save DC Marijuana Legalization!

Marijuana Legalization: With No Cash, Doubts Grow Over Whether Washington State Initiative Will Gather Enough Signatures

After a weeks-long courtship with the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) failed to be consummated with cash, organizers of the Washington state marijuana legalization initiative, I-1068 are, on one hand, vowing to fight on, and on the other, suggesting the effort could be called off soon for lack of funds.

http://www.stopthedrugwar.org/files/hempfest2009-1.jpg
Seattle Hempfest, 2009
Sensible Washington campaign chairman Doug Hiatt told the Associated Press Monday that the group had gathered 100,000 signatures to get the initiative on the ballot, but they need 241,000 valid signatures by July 2 to make the ballot. The group had been counting on the SEIU to help with paid signature gathering, but on Monday, the SEIU said it had decided not to support the effort.

Adam Glickman, vice president of SEIU Local 775, told the AP the union had contributed $10,000 to the campaign for polling and signature vetting and that research had suggested having the initiative on the November ballot could increase liberal turnout in the fall. But Sensible Washington's lack of financial resources raised questions about whether it could in fact get out the vote come November.

He also cited the ACLU of Washington's opposition to the initiative. The ACLU opposes the initiative because, it says, it does not provide a regulatory framework. The ACLU is correct -- the initiative simply removes marijuana offenses from the criminal code -- but Sensible Washington argues that if the initiative were to pass, the legislature and local authorities would be quick to act to set up a regulatory regime.

"There's some merit in the campaign," Glickman said. "It seemed worth looking at as a good policy proposal. But as we looked more into it, there were too many questions about the policy, too much division among the stakeholders. We concluded it wasn't the right time to get involved."

"It's really unfortunate, but you cannot do this without money," Hiatt said of the SEIU's decision. "I never intended I-1068 to be an all-volunteer effort. We'll make a decision in a couple days about whether we're going to go forward."

Campaign spokesman and initiative coauthor Philip Dawdy was less fatalistic. "Politics in this state stinks," he said in a press release Monday. "Marijuana smells better. It's disappointing that SEIU and others have walked away from us, but this campaign will fight on because the issue is simply too important."

"If we get some more volunteers, we can legalize marijuana in Washington State," added Jeffrey Steinborn, an initiative coauthor and Seattle-based attorney who has defended marijuana users for three decades.

The group said it has 20,000 petitions in circulation -- enough for 400,000 signatures -- and is urging activists to send them in sooner rather than later. But now, it's beginning to look like Sensible Washington's uphill battle just got a lot steeper.

Permission to Reprint: This article is licensed under a modified Creative Commons Attribution license.
Looking for the easiest way to join the anti-drug war movement? You've found it!

ACLU

The ACLU is too busy defending transgender terrorist rights to get behind a marijuana initiative that would benefit hundreds of thousands of mainstream marijuana consumers. I thought the ACLU was all about defending the rights of Americans, not creating government regulatory regimes. For shame.

borden's picture

ACLU-WA is not too busy to

ACLU-WA is not too busy to supprt the initiative, they have strategic disagreements with the initiative as written. I'm not taking that side of this, but aren't they entitled to their opinion? They have specific reasons that they've stated, based on their experience and judgment.

David Borden, Executive Director
StoptheDrugWar.org: the Drug Reform Coordination Network
Washington, DC
http://stopthedrugwar.org

Mr. Borden I have to disagree with you

I know you do not live in Washington State and probably do not understand our initiative process. Most people in our state do not fully understand it. I know because I have to explain it to many people every day. In Washington State every initiative must have a single clear concise objective. There can be no “and” in it.

The ACLU’s argument is that they can not support the initiative because it only legalizes marijuana, it does not setup any regulatory structure. If the initiative contained a regulatory structure as the ACLU proposes the Secretary of State of Washington State would have struck down the initiative. So the ACLU’s has said it supports what these people are doing (legalization) but it does not support these particular peoples attempt.

Our house had two bills that did not get out of committee this year, one a legalization bill and one a decriminalization bill. If this gets on the ballot and passes the legalization bill will be the basis for our new regulatory structure.

The actions of the ACLU against our campaign have convinced me, and dozens of people I talk to every day as I circulate I-1068, that the real interest of the ACLU is not to legalize marijuana but to make money of pretending that they want marijuana legalized.

Sensible Washington will have this I-1068 on the ballot this year.

Currently it is polling at 52% for and 35% against you do the math.

borden's picture

wrong

TButler, I suggest you look up the text of I-692, the Washington state medical marijuana initiative from 1998. The original language can be found on the eventure.com web site and doubtless many other places. The initiative went into great detail in describing a regulatory structure for medical marijuana in Washington. It was not invalidated, it passed, and the rest is history. A regulatory structure in a legalization initiative would therefore also pass legal muster. If it describes how legalization is to be done, it is still doing just one thing, just as the detailed regulation in the medical marijuana initiative only did one basic thing.

I have not studied this issue sufficiently to be able to take one side or the other on this, in part because I don't control resources of a level that would be likely to make the difference. I respect the efforts of volunteers like yourself, and if it makes the ballot we will enthusiastically support it. I instinctively lean toward supporting it now.

But when you characterize the positions of advocates who disagree with you on strategy as false, as you have done, you're doing something pretty disrespectful, and it's not backed up by facts. As I've shown above, you were factually mistaken about how far initiatives in Washington can go in detailing new laws. You do not know more than the full-time attorney head of the ACLU-WA's Drug Law Reform Project who has worked there for years, or the other attorneys and activists there, and just because you don't like their stance on this strategy question does not prove that you are right and they are wrong, much less that there is anything false about their stance.

By all means get those signatures if you can do it, but don't throw stones at others who are also devoting themselves to this issue and who just happen to disagree with you on something.

David Borden, Executive Director
StoptheDrugWar.org: the Drug Reform Coordination Network
Washington, DC
http://stopthedrugwar.org

Sir It is you who are wrong.

Here is the stated purpose of I-692

“Qualifying patients with terminal or debilitating illnesses who, in the judgment of their physicians, would benefit from the medical use of marijuana, shall not be found guilty of a crime under state law for their possession and limited use of marijuana;

Persons who act as primary caregivers to such patients shall also not be found guilty of a crime under state law for assisting with the medical use of marijuana; and

Physicians also be excepted from liability and prosecution for the authorization of marijuana use to qualifying patients for whom, in the physician's professional judgment, medical marijuana may prove beneficial”

Our medical marijuana in Washington State is a disaster.

There is no regulation in the initiative it creates a medical marijuana defense in court and nothing more. This is called an affirmative defense. Please look at the Washington State Supreme Court ruling from March of this year. It makes quite clear that the police do not have to honor any document proving a patient to be in need of Marijuana, the DA does not, not even the judge has to listen to a medical marijuana defense until the defendant sits in front of a jury.

The only allowance for cultivation is by the sick or dying patient or a designated provider that can only provide for one patent at a time. This insures that any patient can only get there medicine legally from people who know very little about what they are doing. There is no provision for dispensaries although there are a few that operate illegally.

It also did not spell out how much marijuana was allowed to be possessed or cultivated. Our governor at the request of law enforcement decided that an amount needed to be defined for possessed or cultivated. Our medical marijuana community came up with a 100 sq foot limit, but our governor decided 15 plants in any stage were adequate for any sick person in the state.

Please show me any where in this initiative there is any regulation of medical marijuana, there is none.

Mr. Borden please inform yourself

On Saturday 06/12/20 at 2:42 am you made a serious allegation about me and the many, many people I encounter as I gather signatures who offer, without solicitation, that they feel abandoned or worse by the ACLU.

I quote you: “But when you characterize the positions of advocates who disagree with you on strategy as false, as you have done, you're doing something pretty disrespectful, and it's not backed up by facts.”

I often liken the War on American Citizens a.k.a. the War on Drugs to other more conventional wars; it is easy to draw parallels that resonate with people. I see this difference of opinion that you speak of here as the difference between two commanders who encountered a death camp in WW2. One says “We must immediately shoot the guards and release the prisoners!” the other says “No, we can starve them out.”

Maybe you see this as a difference in strategy. I see this as an abandon of core principals.

It is you and the ACLU that have there facts incorrect sir. I hope that you and the ACLU further educate yourself about Washington State political processes. I hope you will not take my word or the word of the ACLU but actually check your facts.

Mr. Borden you certainly do control an information, or misinformation, powerhouse here, it is your choice. When you speak even incorrectly people hear it and act. We need the entire country to support TRUE legalization of marijuana in Washington State. If anyone reading this believes that marijuana should be legalized, I mean truly believes that marijuana should be legalized, NOW IS THE TIME and WASINGTON IS THE PLACE. With the nations support we can change the world but we can not do it alone or when we have to fight the likes of the ACLU. Please if you believe in LEGALIZATION take what ever money you were going to donate in the coming year to any organization that claims they want to legalize marijuana and send it to right now to SensibleWashington.org, not tomorrow, not next week but RIGHT NOW! https://sensiblewashington.org/donate/

We have less than 3 weeks to get this done and no support for any national organization at all.

While NORML has endorsed us they tell us they are too poor to fund us.

Please read the initiative it is here. http://sensiblewashington.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/1068petitiondma...

It simply removes Civil and Criminal penalties from marijuana. It allows our legislature to regulate it any way that they see fit.

Initiatives should not be used to dictate law as the ACLU demands for their support, only policy. That is what our initiative does. Legislatures write laws and when the legislature is not responsive to the people the people demand POLICY change.

There are hundreds of thousands of Washingtonians that want to sign they just need an opportunity to see the paper so they can sign it. Paid signature gathers put that paper in front of many more people

I-1068 and Doing Democracy

Yeah, Dave is wrong about the medical mj law in Washington state, now long ago. There wasn't a 'legal frame-work'...

But, that isn't the issue at hand IMO. And sadly, it's not really about I-1068, it's about how systems work. Social change is big business in America. There's hundreds of books on it. I have one I go to a lot. It's called "Doing Democracy" and written by Bill Moyer, (not the TV guy, that is Bill Moyers). This Bill is with the Backbone campaign and other great projects. I like him. I like studying this book he wrote, especially in 'times like these.'

There's a group of charts in this book, and overviews and identifies stages of a movement. I don't intend a book review, so will jump to the last few movement stages, that I think sort of sums things up. Where we are at, why things have worked out the way they have and there wasn't funding for paid signature gatherers, and some groups took sides against it. I've watched this initiative get 'tried in a court of law' till it's made me dizzy. You don't see that a lot. So, back to the book I go to when I don't understand the actions of "The Movement."

Stages 1 - 3 take us from normal times, to seeing the problem and then a movement emerges. The movement is usually emerged when about 20-30% of the public 'see the problem.'

Enter Stage 4 -- Washington state had a trigger event when the legislature failed to act and discuss reasonable bills... That was Stage 4 -- our Trigger event. Yep.

Stage 5 is a time of "Perception of Failure" - the details can be summed up easily -- the activists get discouraged!

Stage 6 is called "Majority Public Opinion" and its the stage just before you win, : - ) - so I quoted this entire list here for anyone still with me.

* Majority oppose present conditions and powerholder policies
• Show how the problem and policies affect all sectors of society
• Involve mainstream citizens and institutions in addressing the problem
• Problem put on political agenda
• Promote alternatives
• Counter each new powerholder strategy
• Demonology: powerholders promote public's fear of alternatives and activism
• Promote a paradigm shift, not just reforms
• Retrigger events happen, reenacting stage 4 (lots of grassroots activity) again.

I think stage 7 is soon -- we've recycled through stages 4-6 a few times in the last decade. So much so, that a lot of our colleagues are powerholders now. Amazing....

In Struggle,
Nora

PS -- Isn't doing democracy a pain in the ass -- if it weren't for people like Renatta Rollins and Angela Johnson -- organizers who do extraordinary feats??? So, I-1068 isn't over, and even when it is, win or fail -- we've built an infrastructure of people deeply committed to a big shift -- not just 'reforms'. Stop the drug war.

borden's picture

Please don't deny that two plus two equals four

Friends,

I have read the I-692 language. It contains an extensive description of medical marijuana's regulatory framework in Washington state. It simply does. Denying that is like saying that two plus two does not equal four -- it's a bizarre and nonsensical thing to say.

Yes, there is some regulation that was left up to the government to fill in later, and yes, the more you specify, the more that opponents will have to look for problems in, but those are different arguments.

As I said before, I lean toward supporting the I-1068 signature gatjering, not having studied the question in detail, and of course we'll support it if it gets to the ballot. My complaint is only about TButler's arrogant unwillingness to consider the possibility that someone who disagrees with him might have a legitimate strategic reason. Of course ACLU has reasons, they are the reasons they've communicated. Disagree with them if you want to, you're fully entitled to. But don't accuse them of false motives, that is just gross. And please don't deny that two plus two equals four.

Question: Was ACLU-WA's Drug Law Reform Project brought into the drafting process? If you want an organization's support, it's a good idea to talk to them before rather than after, so you can develop a consensus product that everyone will feel comfortable with.

David Borden, Executive Director
StoptheDrugWar.org: the Drug Reform Coordination Network
Washington, DC
http://stopthedrugwar.org

Respectfully sir, It is your math that seems fuzzy to me.

Please cite any text you deem to be regulatory in I-692.

It simply allows a patient with a qualifying condition to use, in front of a jury, the defense that the marijuana was for medical purposes.

http://www.eventure.com/i692/Pages/i692.html

In State v. Fry our Supremes ruled that medical marijuana in our state is nothing more than an affirmative defense.

http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org/sourcefiles/WAvFry.pdf

I see your opinions sir but where are your facts?

The ACLU says they are for legalization but then does not support it when it presents itself.

Their declared reasons are invalid, it was been pointed out to you and you choose deny it.

Respectfully sir, I think that it is you that has a hard time adding.

As to the question you bring up and I believe it is a telling one.

Was ACLU-WA's Drug Law Reform Project brought into the drafting process?

I think some people at the ALCU got offended that someone would dare to bring an initiative about marijuana without consulting them first.

That anyone would allow this to continue for one day longer than necessary is simple beyond me.

The ACLU has actively worked against the legalization of marijuana in Washington State in regards to I-1068, they have hidden behind a non-excuse and even if you do not understand that thanks to the press of this last week many if not most Washingtonians now understand that.

It is not too late for them to do the right thing and change their minds.

I change many minds every day simply by talking to them one on one.

TButler

borden's picture

TButler, No disrespect

TButler,

No disrespect intended to you either.

However, the initiative text at the page you linked to (thank you for that) has a full 12 sections to it. Some of it legalese about initiative process, but there are several dozen paragraphs that relate to how medical marijuana is regulated in Washington state. If you can't see that, then I just don't know what to say, but thank you for providing the link so everyone else can see it.

And if you think the ACLU was "offended" that someone would bring up a legalization ballot initiative, that's just your fantasy or story.

David Borden, Executive Director
StoptheDrugWar.org: the Drug Reform Coordination Network
Washington, DC
http://stopthedrugwar.org

Sir I see no regulation of anything.

Please cite any text IN PARTICULAR you deem to be regulatory in I-692.

I see some policies stated that the people intended for the legislature to flesh out.

In fact the legislature and governor have fleshed it out against the wishes of our medical and scientific communities.

Sir again, I see your opinions but not your facts.

Let us review the facts.

1. There is an initiative that is trying to qualify for the ballot this fall that calls for full legalization in Washington State, a position the ACLU has in the past supported.

2. The ACLU now claims that their support for legalization is contingent on a regulatory scheme that 8% of the voters would be able to understand, agree to and sign. Then 50% plus one voter would have to agree to it.

3. The Constitution of the state of Washington does not allow for what the ACLU demands.

These are the facts, Sir. You can choose to disregard them if you wish, but I have not seen you refute them. From my last week collecting signatures many Washington citizens know these to be the facts as well.

What this says to me, and many people I encounter every day, is that either the ACLU does not really support legalization or they do not support these people. If they support the cause, but not this very valid attempt to end prohibition it is most likely for personal reasons.

I believe the most likely personal reason is what you alluded to in your question above. It maybe for some other personal reason that I am unaware of, I could not possibly know.

Here are the links to our state constitution.

SECTION 19 BILL TO CONTAIN ONE SUBJECT. No bill shall embrace more than one subject, and that shall be expressed in the title.

http://www.leg.wa.gov/lawsandagencyrules/pages/constitution.aspx

TButler

i-1068 was poorly written and poorly organized

What I am about to write is a stern critique of i-1068's management, and not a bashing of it's many volunteers and supporters who know how ready Washington is for change. My experience with drug laws goes back farther than my residency in Washington, but everything about i-1068 seemed mismanaged from the start.

Sensible Washington asked the ACLU to make sure they found every state marijuana offense to add to the initiative, but never asked them for their opinion on the strategy or purpose of the initiative.

They said that the initiative was crucial because the legislature hadn't acted on legalization or decrim, then they left regulation in the hands of the people that supposedly were too incompetent to act.

They mistook issue support for initiative support.

They focused on gathering signatures and not money.

All marijuana activists in the state had a say, but no other stakeholders did, or their "say" was being told what Sensible Washington was doing, and that it would be good if they supported it.

Troubling signs like lack of support, slow signature returns from crucial populations, and low fiscal backing caused the group to either attack or deflect events as "edges" that would help i-1068.

Some volunteers were led to believe that proposing no regulations would allow Sensible Washington leverage to dictate rules if the initiative passed. I read i-1068 carefully and found it in no way made its organizers the leaders in a framework debate.

But perhaps the biggest flaw in this initiative was that there was only one. Another Washington activist is running 8 signature initiatives. Sensible Washington behaved as if they were not only limited to one issue per initiative, but one initiative per group/election/volunteer/etc. Rather than just hope for the best from a body that's let them down before, they could have shown that they wanted responsibilities along with the freedoms they were reclaiming.

Sensible Washington knew more about cannabis than they did about politics. Rather than learn or adapt, leaders ignored input that didn't fit their view. I want marijuana to legal for adults, and managed responsibly by society. I'm glad i-1068 is unlikely to see the ballots for November because I want my first chance to vote for legalization to be truly sensible.

borden's picture

there's the problem

Okay, there's the problem. You don't know what regulation means. The "some policies" you refer to -- described in literally dozens of paragraphs of text -- ARE regulation. There are other levels of regulation that the legislature and government agencies have had to flesh out.

I will indulge you by pasting in some examples of the regulatory framework that I-692 specified, and which by definition pass the state's constitutional requirements because they passed it then:

Example 1:

The qualifying patient, if eighteen years of age or older, shall:

1. Meet all criteria for status as a qualifying patient;
2. Possess no more marijuana than is necessary for the patient’s personal, medical use, not exceeding the amount necessary for a sixty day supply; and
3. Present his or her valid documentation to any law enforcement official who questions the patient regarding his or her medical use of marijuana.

Example 2:

# It shall be a misdemeanor to use or display medical marijuana in a manner or place which is open to the view of the general public.
# Nothing in this chapter requires any health insurance provider to be liable for any claim for reimbursement for the medical use of marijuana.
# Nothing in this chapter requires any physician to authorize the use of medical marijuana for a patient.
# Nothing in this chapter requires any accommodation of any medical use of marijuana in any place of employment, in any school bus or on any school grounds, or in any youth center.
# It is a class C felony to fraudulently produce any record purporting to be, or tamper with the content of any record for the purpose of having it accepted as, valid documentation under section 6 (5) (a) of this act.
# No person shall be entitled to claim the affirmative defense provided in Section 5 of this act for engaging in the medical use of marijuana in a way that endangers the health or well-being of any person through the use of a motorized vehicle on a street, road, or high

Example 3:

The Washington state medical quality assurance board, or other appropriate agency as designated by the governor, shall accept for consideration petitions submitted by physicians or patients to add terminal or debilitating conditions to those included in this chapter. In considering such petitions, the Washington state medical quality assurance board shall include public notice of, and an opportunity to comment in a public hearing upon, such petitions. The Washington state medical quality assurance board shall, after hearing, approve or deny such petitions within one hundred eighty days of submission. The approval or denial of such a petition shall be considered a final agency action, subject to judicial review.

If you prefer to use a different word than "regulation" to describe that, fine, but don't pretend that the initiative did not provide a substantial elaboration on the framework to be created for doing what the initiative set out to do. Which is clearly what Alison Holcomb at ACLU meant when she used the term "regulatory framework." I-1068 simply repeals penalties, and nothing more. If you think that's the right strategy, argue for that, you and the organizers are certainly entitled to that opinion. But don't hide behind the demonstrably false claim that state law doesn't allow for more of a framework than I-1068 provides.

David Borden, Executive Director
StoptheDrugWar.org: the Drug Reform Coordination Network
Washington, DC
http://stopthedrugwar.org

Once again sir I see no regulation.

It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it.
Upton Sinclair
US novelist & socialist politician (1878 - 1968)
I feel a little like he was talking to you and the ACLU. Let me help you here once again.

What you call regulations in example 1 are the requirements for being able to use the affirmative defense in front of a jury.

They pertain directly to the single issue raised in Section 2: Purpose and Intent of the initiative, which I quote.

“Qualifying patients with terminal or debilitating illnesses who, in the judgment of their physicians, would benefit from the medical use of marijuana, shall not be found guilty of a crime under state law for their possession and limited use of marijuana;

Persons who act as primary caregivers to such patients shall also not be found guilty of a crime under state law for assisting with the medical use of marijuana; and

Physicians also be excepted from liability and prosecution for the authorization of marijuana use to qualifying patients for whom, in the physician's professional judgment, medical marijuana may prove beneficial”

There is no method provided for the acquisition of seeds or starts, and no means for acquiring already manufactured Medical Marijuana, This means there is no way to check for the lack of mold or other contaminants, to make sure it is unadulterated, but more importantly no assurance of consistent quality. Other than for the sick or dying to produce the medicine themselves or a single provider growing for a single patient.

I-692 provides no mechanism for the professional manufacture and/or legal commerce in medical marijuana, the usual meaning of the word “regulation” and the meaning the ACLU uses when they say the initiative lacks regulation. Our legislature and governor have created regulation around Medical Marijuana now, setting a maximum number of plants and a maximum amount that a person can be in have at any time. These are also what would be considered to be regulations. They did not appear in the text of the initiative because they could not and were not appropriate.

Your examples in 2 are refuted as follows

A. The Medical Marijuana does not apply if you need to use your medicine in public.
B. exempts an insurance company from being forced against it will to pay for medical marijuana
C. Does not allow a patient to force a doctor to write a prescription.
D. Does not allow a patient to force his job, school, or other locations to accommodate him.
E. Makes fraudulently creating documents a crime.
F. Makes clear there is no exemption for medical marijuana while driving.

I would say these are the antithesis of regulation.

F. is the closest thing to a regulation that I see here, but it also covered by our DWI law.

Your example 3

This allows for the medical board of the state of Washington to modify of the list of ailments that the affirmative defense can be used for

I believe that it is clearly you who is misusing, misunderstanding, whatever word you choose to use this word “Regulate.”

As for the ACLU I met a man this Sunday who was returning home from, in his words, “A leadership meeting at the ACLU”. His wife confirmed this and although she signed my petition because she understands the importance of full legalization, not decriminalization, and not this phony thing in California, he did not. He would not sign it because “the ACLU is opposed to legalization, we favor decriminalization, but we do not fully understand the ramifications of full legalization.”

This is the ACLU that I see sir. And the ACLU that most Washingtonian I meet in my quest for signatures every day see.

I see an ACLU that does not understand or care, you choose which, that countless deaths in Mexico would stop by December of 2011 if marijuana becomes legal in Washington State in December of 2010, because marijuana will not longer come illegally from Mexico, it would be grown right here in the United States. There will not be the death and destruction in Washington State that there is in Mexico because people will settle there differences in court instead of with guns. Peoples lives will no longer be ruined by the police finding a roach or bag and the police officer not liking the color of the persons skin or their attitude or possible just because the cop was having a bad day or wanted to fill out paper in an air-conditioned office.

As for your contention that I do not have the legal mind of an ACLU lawyer, I did not write the initiative. Two NORML lawyers did.

I would hope that as this is NORMLs issue they would have their pulse better on the electorate, and a better idea of what their single issue that they could get on the ballot would be then the ACLU. If I-1068 does not get on the ballot this year it will not be because the people here do not want to vote on this and vote yes. It will be because not enough people saw it in a timely fashion. This is the case with most initiatives in Washington State. We must get signatures from 8% of the electorate. On a close issue this means about twice that many people need to look at the petition. In other words about a half a million people must see the petition to get the required signatures. At the 20 an hour I get them that is 12,000 man hours, not something any all volunteer organization is likely to do. Personally though, I think we are going to get there on our own.

In terms of the quote at the start of this post, if any organization has any more to lose than NORML if this passes, I do not know who else would.

NORML’s sole reason for existence is to “Reform Marijuana Laws”, it ceases to be a necessary organization as soon as legalization happens. That’s it they are done. This is their one and only issue. I would assume sir that if I was the leader of a single issue public service organization, I speak of NORML here, and I wrote an initiative I would hope my friends of a like mind would support it, not oppose it as the ACLU has done. I would hope that an organization like the ACLU, whose middle name is “Liberties”, would understand the importance to the liberty of all of us in this issue and even if they did not support it, not discourage others from backing it.

TButler

borden's picture

Then I guess you are insane.

Then I guess you are insane.

Also, ACLU supports full legalization of all drugs. I reported on it in our old newsletter when the board adopted that policy in 1994. See http://www.drcnet.org/guide8-94/aclu.html and http://www.aclu.org/drug-law-reform/against-drug-prohibition. They also have advocated legalization of marijuana since at least the 1970s.

I notice that my summation appeared at the bottom of my last lengthy post, rather than nearer to the beginning. For the benefit of any reasonable readers who might not have followed all the way to the end, I repeat it here:

If you prefer to use a different word than "regulation" to describe that, fine, but don't pretend that the initiative did not provide a substantial elaboration on the framework to be created for doing what the initiative set out to do. Which is clearly what Alison Holcomb at ACLU meant when she used the term "regulatory framework." I-1068 simply repeals penalties, and nothing more. If you think that's the right strategy, argue for that, you and the organizers are certainly entitled to that opinion. But don't hide behind the demonstrably false claim that state law doesn't allow for more of a framework than I-1068 provides.

David Borden, Executive Director
StoptheDrugWar.org: the Drug Reform Coordination Network
Washington, DC
http://stopthedrugwar.org

Your response is to resort to name calling!

My father always told me when someone resorts to name calling in a debate you know you have won because they have run out of arguments. You have been doing this since early in our debate but now it is all you have left.

With no evidence, only your word, you have told us since the beginning of this thread how the ACLU believes in legalization, but opposes full legalization in this case. The argument they use is that the initiative has no regulation. I have asked you to site ANY Washington State initiative that has had a dual purpose and lived up to our constitutional sniff test. The only one you have pointed to is I-692 and I have clearly refuted your argument that it coupled medical marijuana with regulation.

I have shown people the actual facts that the ACLU does not support legalization, as that is exactly what this initiative does nothing more nothing less.

You have asked your “Friends” to believe you about the ACLUs position without offering any proof of your assertions, only your opinions.

You show no legitimate evidence to support your arguments and I have handily refuted what you perceive to be the basis of your argument that regulation could be on the same initiative and you call me insane.

Sir I will leave you with this.

If the ACLU believes that regulation is need to legalize marijuana they should have worked to put on the ballot a regulation initiative to complement NORMLs initiative. They then could still claim that they are for legalization. As it is the ACLU has boxed itself into a corner on this issue and it is my belief that it will bite them in the behind.

As I talk to people here in Washington State, many people, that I encounter, offer their belief that the ACLU does not support legalization. People do not see this as the ACLU not supporting the initiative, but as them not supporting legalization. Sir you can shoot the messenger, or call him insane, if you wish. It does not change the fact that the ACLU and apparently StopTheDrugWar.org both stand in opposition to the full legalization of marijuana in Washington State this year.

I am sad for you that your loyalty to your friends is greater than your loyalty to the cause your website espouses.

In Washington State, this November, the people may get the opportunity to legalize marijuana, the first step in Stop(ping) the Drug War. It is a shame they will have to fight against the “legalize all drugs” establishment in order to do that.

Again I say to your readers!

We need the entire country to support TRUE legalization of marijuana in Washington State. If anyone reading this believes that marijuana should be legalized, I mean truly believes that marijuana should be legalized, NOW IS THE TIME and WASINGTON IS THE PLACE. With the nations support we can change the world but we can not do it alone or when we have to fight the likes of the ACLU and StopTheDrugWar.org. Please if you believe in LEGALIZATION take what ever money you were going to donate in the coming year, or even this decade, to any organization that claims they want to legalize marijuana (or all drugs) and send it to right now to SensibleWashington.org, not tomorrow, not next week but RIGHT NOW!

https://sensiblewashington.org/donate/

And if you live in Washington State Volunteer, time is running out to make this a reality.

http://sensiblewashington.org/volunteer/

TButler

borden's picture

read up on ballot initiative campaigns

TButler, it would be crazy to have two initiatives on the ballot at the same time to do different parts of one thing. That would be a recipe for failure. If you don't believe that, do some reading up on ballot initiative campaigns. I have watched many of them over the years.

You don't just get to have things your way, when there are other people around who disagree with you, and just because they disagree with you doesn't mean that you're right and they're wrong. Grow up!

David Borden, Executive Director
StoptheDrugWar.org: the Drug Reform Coordination Network
Washington, DC
http://stopthedrugwar.org

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <img> <i> <blockquote> <p> <address> <pre> <h1> <h2> <h3> <h4> <h5> <h6> <br> <object> <param> <embed> <b>

More information about formatting options

CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Drug War Issues

Criminal JusticeAsset Forfeiture, Collateral Sanctions (College Aid, Drug Taxes, Housing, Welfare), Court Rulings, Drug Courts, Due Process, Felony Disenfranchisement, Incarceration, Policing (2011 Drug War Killings, 2012 Drug War Killings, 2013 Drug War Killings, 2014 Drug War Killings, Arrests, Eradication, Informants, Interdiction, Lowest Priority Policies, Police Corruption, Police Raids, Profiling, Search and Seizure, SWAT/Paramilitarization, Task Forces, Undercover Work), Probation or Parole, Prosecution, Reentry/Rehabilitation, Sentencing (Alternatives to Incarceration, Clemency and Pardon, Crack/Powder Cocaine Disparity, Death Penalty, Decriminalization, Defelonization, Drug Free Zones, Mandatory Minimums, Rockefeller Drug Laws, Sentencing Guidelines)CultureArt, Celebrities, Counter-Culture, Music, Poetry/Literature, Television, TheaterDrug UseParaphernalia, ViolenceIntersecting IssuesCollateral Sanctions (College Aid, Drug Taxes, Housing, Welfare), Violence, Border, Budgets/Taxes/Economics, Business, Civil Rights, Driving, Economics, Education (College Aid), Employment, Environment, Families, Free Speech, Gun Policy, Human Rights, Immigration, Militarization, Money Laundering, Pregnancy, Privacy (Search and Seizure, Drug Testing), Race, Religion, Science, Sports, Women's IssuesMarijuana PolicyGateway Theory, Hemp, Marijuana -- Personal Use, Marijuana Industry, Medical MarijuanaMedicineMedical Marijuana, Science of Drugs, Under-treatment of PainPublic HealthAddiction, Addiction Treatment (Science of Drugs), Drug Education, Drug Prevention, Drug-Related AIDS/HIV or Hepatitis C, Harm Reduction (Methadone & Other Opiate Maintenance, Needle Exchange, Overdose Prevention, Safe Injection Sites)Source and Transit CountriesAndean Drug War, Coca, Hashish, Mexican Drug War, Opium ProductionSpecific DrugsAlcohol, Ayahuasca, Cocaine (Crack Cocaine), Ecstasy, Heroin, Ibogaine, ketamine, Khat, Marijuana (Gateway Theory, Marijuana -- Personal Use, Medical Marijuana, Hashish), Methamphetamine, New Synthetic Drugs (Synthetic Cannabinoids, Synthetic Stimulants), Nicotine, Prescription Opiates (Fentanyl, Oxycontin), Psychedelics (LSD, Mescaline, Peyote, Salvia Divinorum)YouthGrade School, Post-Secondary School, Raves, Secondary School