420 Policies and Laws

[sgreger1]

the ten percent thing basically only covers your national security and would only apply to you if you wanted it to. you wouldn't have to deal with the government but you also can't expect anything in return. i'm just curious why that is a bad idea.

This is my problem with Ron Paul, like wtf is he doing submitting shit like this? You could not have two parallel systems where it's a libertarian dream for part of the population (those who opt out of taxes) and a regular system for those who chose not to. That would be a giant boondoggle and there would be no realistic way to enforce laws or respond to emergencies like a fire or something. I think certain systems require a certain level of socialization just to be viable. For example, I don't think the fire service would be reasonable if it were a commercial/for profit venture as opposed to a socialized program. i could be wrong, but I just don't see how we could create a two tiered system where half the citizens live under one set of rules and the other half lives under another.

Realistically, I think we should all pay our fair share. I bitch about paying my 25% or whatever it is they take in taxes, but if I have to take a 25% tax than so should millionaires and billionaires. I respect those who do well for themselves and I do not ask that they get taxed more than me, I just ask that everyone pay what they owe. The current system charges me thousands a year, and to me that is a lot of money, all I ask is that rich people pay the same tax and not evade any of it. If everyone was paying like 15% in taxes, and nobody cheated or hid money, than the overall tax burden per person would not be such a big deal. The current system allows someone with a trillion dollars to pay taxes lower than me sometimes, and it leads to the middle class having to shoulder the burden. Even though the rich pay the majority of the taxes, they are still not paying the same amount I am asked to pay in many circumstances, and I think it is only fair that we all pay into this thing equal. I am not sure if a flat tax would work, but it sounds like a great idea on the surface anyways.


Ron Paul, gotta love him, and I would vote for him every time, but it's shit like this man, shit like this.

[Crow]

The only issue I think I can agree with Ron Paul is reforming our drug policy. Some of his other views are just plain loony.

[G_Jones]

Well marijuana is practically legal in Seattle as it is, but for some reason now smoking electronic cigarettes is not. Perhaps the city attorney can fix that problem first.

[GoVegan]

The only issue I think I can agree with Ron Paul is reforming our drug policy. Some of his other views are just plain loony.

I will agree that some of his ideas are loony but his ideas in regards to freedom and states rights seem to hit home. Besides the president cannot change everything but they do have some influence. It would be nice though to see just a few of his ideas and philosophy trickle in to set us back on track. If I had to pick between Paul or Obama, Paul would get my vote.

[african redbush]

abolishing the fed + fiat currency
allow airplane pilots to carry firearms + supports 2nd amendment
end war on drugs
end united states imperialism in the middle east
eliminate unnecessary federal government agencies to cut spending
supports free trade

these sound like pretty good ideas to me. or we can vote in some more puppets like obama, w. bush, clinton, bush sr., reagan, etc.

[Crow]

White House Requests Meeting with Seattle Times to Bully Against Pro-Pot Editorials

The Stranger has learned that immediately after the Seattle Times ran an editorial last week supporting a bill to tax and regulate marijuana, the newspaper got a phone call from Washington, D.C. The White House Office of National Drug Control Policy director Gil Kerlikowske wanted to fly to Seattle to speak personally with the paper's full editorial board.

The meeting is scheduled for next Friday, an apparent attempt by the federal government to pressure the state's largest newspaper to oppose marijuana legalization. Or at least turn down the volume on its new-found bullhorn to legalize pot.

Bruce Ramsey, the Seattle Times editorial writer who wrote the unbylined piece, says the White House called right “right after our editorial ran, so I drew the obvious conclusion… he didn’t like our editorial.”

“MARIJUANA should be legalized, regulated and taxed,” the newspaper wrote on February 18. “The push to repeal federal prohibition should come from the states, and it should begin with the state of Washington."

This isn't the first time the Obama Administration has campaigned to keep pot illegal. Kerlikowske, who is also Seattle's former police chief, also traveled to California last fall to campaign against Prop 19, a measure to decriminalize marijuana and authorize jurisdictions to tax and regulate it.

Is the Seattle Times the more reticent to speak up? Apparently not. It ran another pro-pot editorial in today’s paper.

Kerlikowske's office has not yet responded to a request for comment.

http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/arc...o-pot-articles

[Crow]

... and here are a couple of excerpts from the article that ruffled Gil's feathers:

The Seattle Times: "The Washington Legislature should legalize marijuana"

MARIJUANA should be legalized, regulated and taxed. The push to repeal federal prohibition should come from the states, and it should begin with the state of Washington.

In 1998, Washington was one of the earliest to vote for medical marijuana. It was a leap of faith, and the right decision. In 2003, Seattle was one of the first places in America to vote to make simple marijuana possession the lowest police priority. That, too, was a leap of faith, and the right decision. A year ago, City Attorney Pete Holmes stopped all prosecutions for simple possession: the right decision.

It is time for the next step. It is a leap, yes — but not such a big one, now.

Some drugs have such horrible effects on the human body that the costs of prohibition may be worth it. Not marijuana. This state's experience with medical marijuana and Seattle's tolerance policy suggest that with cannabis, legalization will work — and surprisingly well.

Not only will it work, but it is coming. You can feel it.

One sign: On Feb. 8, a committee of the state House of Representatives in Olympia held a public hearing on House Bill 1550. The bill would legalize marijuana and sell it through the state liquor stores to customers over 21 who consume it in private.

The big issue at the hearing was the bill's conflict with federal law: the prospect of Washington legalizing marijuana in defiance of federal authority. What would that mean?

There would be a legal and political fight. In our view, such a fight is bound to happen. Some state is going to start it. It might have been California, but the Golden State turned down a marijuana-legalization initiative Nov. 2, voting only 46 percent for it.

Sometimes Washington is ahead of California. This state's voters were the first to approve gay civil unions, in 2009. California's voters didn't. Ours did.

Pass HB 1550. Legalize cannabis, regulate it, tax it. It is radical, yet commonsensical.

"It has taken me a long time to get to this position," said HB 1550's sponsor, Rep. Mary Lou Dickerson, D-Seattle.

It took us a long time also. The people of Washington may already be there, and if not, they are close.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...it20legal.html

-------------------------------

... and here is The Seattle Times' most recent article:

The Seattle Times: "Legalize Cannabis"

Legalizing cannabis: High time for a sober discussion about marijuana

Editorial Page Editor Ryan Blethen writes about why The Seattle Times favors legalizing cannabis.

It is rare we publish an editorial on a hot topic and receive near universal praise. But that is what happened last week when we came out in support of Washington state legalizing cannabis.

The fact that a lot of people support the drug being legal is not surprising. Most people I know have long supported legalization of marijuana.

Knowing people who support it and public opinion about a newspaper supporting it are different things.

When people take the time to e-mail or call me about an editorial, it is usually because they do not agree with the editorial page. This editorial was different. The compliments rolled in, the discussion in the comments section of the editorial is nearing 600 and is interesting and thoughtful — which is not always the case — and so far the editorial has been recommended by about 3,000 people on Facebook.

Those numbers are nice to see, but only a minor part of the story. What the editorial has shown is that a broad cross-section of Washingtonians supports legalizing cannabis, or at least are ready to discuss the issue seriously.

Legalizing would put Washington out in front. We would be the first state to make the drug legal and regulate it. This would put us at odds with federal law — something we considered. Through our internal discussions this opposition to federal law became a point in favor of endorsing legalization. We believe it is the right thing to do, so why not lead the country?

The possibility of a positive response is not why we voiced our support for Seattle Democratic Rep. Mary Lou Dickerson's bill to legalize cannabis. Any decent editorial page is going to take unpopular stands or endorse politicians or issues that rile readership. I still hear from readers fuming about The Seattle Times' endorsement of George W. Bush in the 2000 presidential election. (I was not here then but am certain the editorial board was not smoking anything.)

How did we get to the point of supporting the legalization of a drug? Like any big decision or change of opinion, it was a process. This process started more than a year ago when I brought the issue up with the publisher. He was intrigued, but clearly not comfortable with the idea.

My argument was that the war against marijuana was a loser. It is a drain on law-enforcement resources and precious government funds. I also pointed out that by legalizing cannabis it cuts off a major source of funds for cartels and gangs.

From there we set about researching the topic. Some on the editorial board had worries about it being a gateway drug and about the effects on children. My counter was that if a teenager really wants pot, he or she is going to find a way to get it regardless of its legality. Just like alcohol. By regulating cannabis, it removes those under 18 from the presence of drug dealers, who, because it is their business, often have other kinds of drugs they can push on their young customers.

Another factor that played heavily in the decision is the outsize punishments for relatively small amounts of marijuana.

Enter Dickerson's bill. It dovetailed nicely with our yearlong internal examination of the issue. The publisher was comfortable with the decision so I gave editorial writer Bruce Ramsey the green light.

As far as I can tell, The Times is one of the few metropolitan newspapers to push for legal cannabis. That does not mean we are alone. Former Seattle Police Chief Norm Stamper has a piece below about regulating illicit drugs. Stamper is not a lone voice in law enforcement believing that the dollars spent in the futile effort to eradicate drugs would be better used for treatment.

It is high time this country had a sober discussion about marijuana. Because what we are doing now is not working. Washington state's Legislature could lead the discussion by passing Dickerson's bill.

Ryan Blethen's column appears on editorial pages of The Times. His e-mail address is: rblethen@seattletimes.com

[Crow]

The Seattle Times is not slowing down... It's full steam ahead.

Seattle Times Live chat | Legalize marijuana in Washington state?

Join Seattle Times editorial writers and guest panelists for an online chat Thursday, March 3 about whether Washington state should enact House Bill 1550, which would legalize marijuana. Moderated by Editorial Page Editor Ryan Blethen, the chat will include both proponents and opponents and begin at noon. Submit questions in advance of the chat.

Moderator:
Ryan Blethen, Editorial Page Editor, The Seattle Times

[Today 12:00 PT / 15:00 PM ET, 20:00 GMT]

Live chat | Legalize marijuana in Washington state?

[Generalfiend]

I agree that cannabis should be legal and regulated as strictly as alcohol. To me it feels as tho marijuana is having the same things happen to it that alcohol did during prohibition, like how people would brew home made alcohol in their bath tubs or in stills outside that would have dead animals and plants fall into them, its just unsanitary. When you buy some weed off a guy on the street you really have no idea what your getting and can be putting your health at serious risk, after all you wont know if the blunt you bought is laced with something like PCP till after you smoke it, and by then its to late. Unless you have a good friend who sells, you also have to buy from shady drug dealers on the street which can put you in a vary bad situation vary quickly. By regulating marijuana we would eliminate these kinds of factors that are normally the problems of illegal marijuana use. After all we as a society do not look down on alcohol yet it is far worse for your health and can easily kill you will cannabis has no possibility for addiction or death, and is seen as a safe recreational intoxicant by most of our society, especially among the younger generation right now. Finally probably the biggest positive of legalization is the amount of tax money and economic growth that would appear from marijuana legalization, and the decrease in the amount of money spent on sending people to prison for getting high. So legilize it!

[Kstolen23]

Cannabis sounds like canabalist. . . Just throwing it out there. Is it wierd that I'm hungry now?

[Crow]

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/fla...nabischat.html

I'll post a full transcript when it's over.

[sgreger1]

I will agree that some of his ideas are loony but his ideas in regards to freedom and states rights seem to hit home. Besides the president cannot change everything but they do have some influence. It would be nice though to see just a few of his ideas and philosophy trickle in to set us back on track. If I had to pick between Paul or Obama, Paul would get my vote.

The president has little power but "sets the tone" for the administration and also has the ability to ultimately say no (via veto) to anything they really couldn't justify signing their name too. Ron Paul would be most effective as a president because he would set the apropriate tone for everyone else, and he could veto anything that was too crazy.


The main thing I like about Ron Paul is that it's genuine. He's not like Obama, a freshman politician who happened to get funded by the right people, who changes his opinions daily based on the latest public opinion polls. Very populist at the wrong times and ignores the will of the people the rest of the time when good things are actually popular (like repealing the patriot act which he keeps extending). Ron Paul has been playing the same broken record of "states rights, liberty etc" for years, we know he won't flip flop and waffle like Obama, and we know he will be more honest too.

This is just going by his voting record, as we all know people seem to change when they get elected.

[Crow]

12:02
Ryan Blethen, Times:
Welcome to a live chat about the legalization of cannabis. We have an interesting panel of proponents and opponents.

My first question is for the opponents. Given that much of the recent discussion has focused on why legalization should happen, tell us why it shouldn't?

12:03
Commander Pat Slack:
Hi, I'm Commander Pat Slack from the Snohomish Regional Drug & Gang Task Force (SRDGTF).

12:04
Stephen Bogan, Therapist:
Stephen Bogan, therapist and addiction counselor working with many youth and adults addicted to pot and needing help.
Legalization is wrong, confusing message for youth-they think it is already "almost" legal now. The drug can be addicting, dangerous for youth and children.

12:05
Commander Pat Slack:
I do not believe that we are taking the over all impacts of this decision into account. I believe that this will enhance the use of this drug amongst the youth of our society. And when I mean youth, I'm talking down to 12 and 13 year old. It will be impossible to keep it out of their hands under this bill.

12:05
Ryan Blethen, Times:
A question for Doug Hiatt: How does your initiative differ from Rep. Dickerson's bill 1550?

12:05
douglas hiatt, sensible washington:
this is douglas hiatt of sensible washinton, also a lawyer

12:07
douglas hiatt, sensible washington:
the initiative removes all criminal and civil penalties for adult marijuana use and legalizes industrial hemp, but it does not specify any regulations because of federal pre emption concerns, in other words we do not include the distribution system

12:08
Stephen Bogan, Therapist:
Can the legalization supporters be clear and open on if they see any dangers for use of pot by youth, like with early use of alcohol?

12:10
Ryan Blethen, Times:
Mr. Slack and Mr. Bogan, you are worried about the impact of cannabis on youth. The bill in Olympia would not legalize pot for those younger than 21. How would legal cannabis impact teenagers and youth?

12:11
douglas hiatt, sensible washington:
because marijuana is not lethal and does not have a calculable l/d 50, i do not worry about death like i do with alcohol. any substance abuse issues need to be handled individually and not drive national or state policy

12:12
Bruce Ramsey, Times:
Regarding youth: What the Times supports is ending cannabis prohibition for adults--not for youth. The "message" this sends is that 13 year olds are supposed to wait until they are adults.

Some won't. But some don't NOW, and the problems you are having with kids using it are happening now, under prohibition. Would they be worse, if 21-year-olds could buy cannabis at the liquor store? Maybe, but maybe not much. But the legalization would lessen a lot of other problems, including crime, gangs, gang violence, and the diversion of police resources from real crime.

12:12
Ryan Blethen, Times:
Reader question for the panel from TheSameBoat, Seattle, WA: If legalization is supposed to increase use, how do you explain what happened in the Netherlands over the last 20 years? The teens and young people there now use it less than here in the U.S. There's no "cool" factor to weed anymore.

12:12
Commander Pat Slack:
In the last 10 years, up until 2009, in the Healthy Youth Surveys we were seeing a decrease in marijuana usage among high school kids. In 2009, there is a dramatic increase and the indications are that there is an even larger increase in 2010. We believe that is attributed to the relaxed attitude on marijuana and the indication that it can be utilized for many medicinal purposes.

12:12
Stephen Bogan, Therapist:
Death by a substance is a ridiculous standard for defining danger from a drug- addiction to pot s more subtle but very damaging to teen brains, emotional development, etc. People don't have to die to have consequences.

12:13
[Comment From PermieDoc:]
Why is the Federal Government dragging their feet on legalizing marijuana when we are so short of tax funds and there is so much violence associated with the illegal trade of marijuana?

12:13
Bruce Ramsey, Times:
Is there a big difference between kids' use of marijuana in Seattle, where arrests of adult users have ended, and in other places in the state? In other words, is the reported use specific to areas where the law has been relaxed?

12:13
[Comment From Phil Mocek:]
Cannabis is not physically addictive. It's addictive like bacon cheeseburgers and extreme sports are.

12:14
douglas hiatt, sensible washington:
because the war on drugs is a sixty billion plus per year industry, permie

12:15
Commander Pat Slack:
To Phil -
In my contact with individuals that have indicated that they are addicted to marijuana, they do not consider it to be similar to bacon cheeseburgers. This interactivity has occurred at the Drug Court level where people are struggling to meet the standard of drug abstinence.

[Crow]

12:16
douglas hiatt, sensible washington:
yes, stephan everything has consequences, but i am seeing very few negative ones associated with cannabis use, except of course the ridiculous criminal laws.

12:17
Ryan Blethen, Times:
A question from preventionfirst, Seattle: What needs to be done to create an effective public health system that effectively addresses substance abuse problmes?

12:17
Bruce Ramsey, Times:
If Washington legalized cannabis, as under S.B. 1550, it would be for the state only. Not for shipment out of the state, and not for shipment into the state, either. We would grow it here, process it here and consume it here. And still it would be against federal law, so there is an unanswered question about that.

12:18
Stephen Bogan, Therapist:
The legal battles are a barrier for folks to get help, of course, but I am working with youth and adults who are addicted, use mutiple times a day, mask depression and anxiety, dumb down their goals, jobs, life in order to get stones-they see pot as their best friend that would never harm them.

12:18
douglas hiatt, sensible washington:
treatment on demand is the gold standard we should have. i have never been able to get any of my clients treatment in any reasonable time period, unless of course, they are rich.

12:19
Ryan Blethen, Times:
A question for Bruce from hilljerk, downtown: Is all of this pointless if our Governor won't sign it into law? Can we override her?

12:20
Bruce Ramsey, Times:
To Stephen Bogan: If marijuana were legalized for adults, your practice would continue as before. Some people would have a problem with it, just as they do now, and just as they do with alcohol. The proposal to legalize it for adults is to stop treating it with police, courts and jails, not to stop anything else.

12:20
[Comment From K:]
Cannabis is absolutely addictive. For those of you smoking it, try to stop for a month. Withdrawl does happen. That equals addiction.

12:20
Stephen Bogan, Therapist:
So Doug, are you agreeing that a certain percentage of folks do get addicted and will need treatment for THC? And can you agree that the risk for youth is even greater due to brain and emotional development?

12:21
[Comment From Alex:] How does the federal government claim constitutional authority to involve itself in this issue? There was never a constitutional amendment to prohibit marijuana. If I want to grow a plant in the back yard- no selling, transporting, exposing to minors, etc.- that has nothing to do with commerce between the states.

12:21
douglas hiatt, sensible washington:
no, k. it doesnt automatically meet the standards for that alone.

12:21
Bruce Ramsey, Times:
To Ryan: Sure, the passage of S.B. 1550 would be legally pointless if Gov. Gregoire didn't sign it into law. But it would not be politically pointless. It would be a very big deal. It would be national news. And it would have political consequences. Thursday March 3, 2011 12:21 Bruce Ramsey, Times

12:22
[Comment From mrdudeguy:]
@ Pat Slack People who have gambling and other non chemical behavioral addictions also have trouble kicking it.

12:22
douglas hiatt, sensible washington:
no, stephan, i dont agree that youth are especially at risk. i do not see the medical literature supporting that, out side of the one bogus meta study that keeps getting cited on schizophrenia, which is medically worthless.

12:22
Bruce Ramsey, Times:
For Setphen: I'll stipulate that some people have a problem with the drug, whether it's chemical addiction like nicotine, or a psychological addiction. That is so whether the drug's users and suppliers are arrested and jailed or not.

12:23
Ryan Blethen, Times:
Doug, shouldn't other drugs be legal if cannabis is?

12:24
Bruce Ramsey, Times:
On the issue of youth: At what point do we say, yes, there is a problem with youth having certain things, but most people are adults, and the adults want them. And so do we set the rules for adults based on what we would desire for children?

12:24
douglas hiatt, sensible washington:
i would support reform of all of our drug laws, as the war on drugs is a war on people and the most destructive thing this country has ever done with it's criminal justice policy. it is an insidious and incredibly dangerous policy.

12:25
Ryan Blethen, Times:
Mr. Bogan, this is a good question for you from Christine Milton in Seattle: If we legalize marijuana, how will the system accomodate the side effects such as lung cancer, throat cancer, and addiction to name a few. In other words, who will pay for this?

12:25
Ryan Blethen, Times:
Bruce, why is legalizing cannabis different from cocaine or prostitution?

12:26
[Comment From Paul M Nipper:]
Amen Bruce to your last comment @ Ryan. National news indeed!

[Crow]

12:26
[Comment From rc:]
watch the documentary Super High Me. A life long marijuana smoker quits for a month with only minimal discomfort, similar to going on a diet.

12:26
douglas hiatt, sensible washington:
no lung cancer , less throat and neck cancers. may hold anti tumorial secrets for cancer research, especially breast cancers. very promising research going on in the world, not here.

12:26
Stephen Bogan, Therapist:
In these tough economic times, it is hard to believe that insurance companies would cover costs of abuse and addiction to a drug that most "experts" see as harmless-these folks with medical issues with pot are probably being seen already for bronchial and other medical consequences.

12:27
[Comment From Casey:]
Ryan, other drugs ARE legal. Alcohol, cigarettes...been to Walgreens lately?

12:27
Ryan Blethen, Times:
Casey, I'm aware of that.

12:28
[Comment From Kieron Higgs:]
Shouldn't other drugs be legal if ALCOHOL is?

12:28
[Comment From Craig:]
Mr. Bogan, what is worse your our youth and teens, smoking Ciggarettes or Marijuana?

12:29
[Comment From Kyle W.:]
@ Ryan, I guess that really depends. Portugal did a full scale legalization and they experienced all drug use going down. Now don't get me wrong, I have seen families torn apart by Meth or Alcohol, but when it comes to cannabis, I can't honestly say that I have experienced any *severe* family issues that weren't caused on the legal side of it instead of the social side of it.

12:29
douglas hiatt, sensible washington:
no one is going to jail for marlboros folks.

12:29
[Comment From Michael Martin:]
How much revenue could the state bring in if passed as written?

12:29
Stephen Bogan, Therapist:
Both for a lot of reasons-pot affects the emotional, physical, psychological developing brain, and like tobacco has life long consequences.

12:30
Bruce Ramsey, Times:
On cannabis versus cocaine or prostitution: Cocaine is a more psychoactive drug than cannabis, and, I believe, much more addictive. Also, it is imported from abroad, which makes it much more difficult to confine it in one state, as S.B. 1550 tries to do with cannabis.

As for prostitution--the sale of sex is more of a vice than cannabis, and it involves what many see as the subjugation of the seller. However, prostitution is legal in Nevada, so there is not a federal issue there.

12:31
douglas hiatt, sensible washington:
revenue? get out your calculators: uh, how big is the industrial hemp market? all now imported from china, etc. let's get our farmers busy. million from criminal justice savings alone, better policing without the drug war bullshit.

12:32
Bruce Ramsey, Times:
On revenue: Nobody knows for sure. The number being kicked around in Olympia is $400 million every two years, and by a back-of-the-envelope calculation, I figured it would be $300 million every two years. The whole state budget is somewhat over $30 billion every two years, so we're talking about 1% of state revenue. Not a giant gusher, but certainly enough to get lawmakers' attention.

12:33
Ryan Blethen, Times:
Commander Slack, how heavily does crime related to marijuana play into what you and your team deal with? Is pot the problem or other, harder drugs?

12:34
Stephen Bogan, Therapist:
If the trends for adolescent use abuse and addiction continue to go up, that money would never be availible to treat youth who will need help-do we care whether funds are there for prevention and treatment?

12:35
Bruce Ramsey, Times:
To Stephen Bogan: I think people do care about treatment. Maybe some of the $300-$400 million per biennium could pay for that.

12:35
douglas hiatt, sensible washington:
yes it does, robert. the reason industrial hemp is illegal is because the dea cant tell the difference from the air and it affects marijuana eradication efforts. it is idiotic, but true

12:35
Commander Pat Slack:
To Ryan -
Currently, marijuana is probably 25% of our activity. In 2003 and 2007, the Adams Study that we participated in at the Snohomish County Jail showed an increase in individuals that their primary drug was marijuana and their involvement in violent crime. The organizations that we investigate are usually involved in multiple drugs.

12:36
douglas hiatt, sensible washington:
commander, alcohol abuse is the biggest predictor of violence and the primary for almost all your guests.

12:36
Ryan Blethen, Times:
Commander Slack, Mr. Hiatt a reader question from PriveteIntel in Kenmore: Since the cost of the end product delivered thoruogh this new marekt is unknown, how does anyone know that an "underground market" will just disapear if the cost of doing business in a legitimate market is so high that consumers will turn to an "underground market" for cheaper product, especially since this underground market is already well establishe?

12:37
Bruce Ramsey, Times:
To Commander Slack: One of the objectives of legalization is to get cannabis out of the hands of criminals and gangs. Back in the 1920s, huge gangs were formed to distribute alcohol. Legalization put them out of business. We don't see beer distributors murdering each other any more, and I know of at least one beer distributor in the state legislature.

12:37
douglas hiatt, sensible washington:
yes, one love. thank you.

12:37
Stephen Bogan, Therapist:
What potency of pot would be legalized? Can we talk about the fact that thc potency nationally is close to 13% and much higher in this state? We have children using high potency pot and getting addicted quicker.

12:38
Commander Pat Slack:
Douglas - I'm not going to disagree that alcohol is a problem. What I am saying is that in my 4 decades in law enforcement, a vast majority of the people that I have seen arrested for criminal activity have pointed to their drug addiction as the cause of their poor decision making. And marijuana is way up there in their drug of choice.

12:38
[Comment From Michael:]
USE THE TAXES FOR COUNSELING

12:38
[Comment From Bob Bainsfield:]
@ Commander Slack couldn't you cripple (financially) the money that these violent people have by legalizing cannabis for adults use?