(Please check this out to help with some more of my drug policy activism.)
Fortunately for them but unfortunately for me, they ran out of extra twenty-signature petitions, so they just gave me a bunch of four-signature petitions. Good news is that I should be getting some twenty-signature sheets in the mail soon. I decided that a good way to collect signatures before school starts (grrr quarter system...) would be to go to the Bellingham Farmers Market.
I brought my sign and expected it to be fairly easy to collect signatures. However, that was not the case. There were only about two or three people who came up and signed without hesitation. The most asked question was..."How is this different from I-502?" or a variant of that ("Don't we already have legalization?"). Sometimes it was just like a line of people asking that same question one after the other.
The difficulty I find with explaining I-648 is that most people are not familiar with the I-502 law, thus having to explain that and how I-648 addresses some issues found in that or not addressed in I-502 at all. I-648 also covers quite a bit of legislation. These are the main points I usually addressed:
1) Medical patients can be charged with DUI despite following a doctor's advice and not actually being impaired. Under I-502, the active-THC limit is 5 nanograms per milliliter of blood. My main problem with that number is that other studies have chosen other "limits" and say that it also varies from individual to individual. How do you regulate that? Not to mention, if you are suspected of driving under the influence, the only reliable way to detect the amount of active-THC in your blood is to...draw blood and test it. That is not something a police officer can just do (or is qualified to do for that matter) on the roadside - they have to bring the person in. I-648 will at least treat patients "like prescription drug patients regarding the driving under the influence law."
2) Under I-502, punishments for those twenty years of age and younger became more severe for marijuana possession - at least one day in jail and a maximum of ninety days. I-648 would make first offense possession for those twenty-years-old and younger a class 3 civil infraction, a maximum monetary penalty of $50.
3) Even under I-502, the transfer of marijuana from one adult to another is a felony, unless one is a licensed vendor - the exception is a caregiver transferring medicine to a patient. With I-648, "No license, fee, tax, or permit is required of adults...to transfer not-for-profit the amounts specified...to any other person," which of course only applies to those twenty-one and older.
Of course, these are not the only issues addressed in I-648. Read more here if you want all the details.
There were so many kids at the farmers market...I knew parents and grandparents would not be so happy if I made my presence too well-known. I really do hate how this is not a topic that is deemed as socially-acceptable, or is barely-so. A lot of people looked at me as if I was a freak of nature. It was like the AS Elections all over again.
One woman rushed over to me and said, "Sorry, I had to rush here - I don't want my grandchildren see me sign this."
Despite people ignoring me or giving me weird stares, it was not hostile at all. There were only two people who announced to me that they were against any kind of marijuana legalization. One said that it makes people even more dumb, and people are dumb enough as they are. Another told me after I asked her if she wanted to learn more after telling her a bit of what I-648 would do if enacted into law that she was not for legalization and walked off. She walked away too quickly for me to ask why she did not believe in legalization...or I was a few seconds too late to realize that I should have asked that question.
This was a very random observation, but there were a lot of people from out of the area. Some of the signers were from Seattle and other parts of Washington, and two I talked with were out-of-state - Colorado and California.
After telling two guys some of the things I-648 would deal with, they did not care to sign, although they expressed interest in maybe looking more into it. One of them said that he might sign it after getting drunk tonight and pointed to Rumors across the street. He asked me if I would be there. I thought it was strange that someone assumed I would be going clubbing at a certain location that night. I forget what I said (something probably like, "Nah, I don't think so"), but he inquired on whether or not I go out dancing much, and I replied, "No, not really."
A minute after they left, the realization of what was going on dawned upon me.
By going to the farmers market, I was able to collect four-and-a-half sheets of signatures. Hopefully next time, I will not not be too lazy and head there around the time it opens. I think I was only there for like two hours. I have decided that I will journal about my experiences with this on here. So look forward to more of my 648 Adventures!
Benefits of four-signature petitions - makes it seem like I accomplished a lot! |
Very Impressed with the way the US is starting to handle cannabis. Hope it won't be too long now before the rest of us start changing our laws..
ReplyDelete#1 sounds scary with the legislation currently in place. I suppose it's a bit similar to alcohol in that different people have different tolerances, so the BAC or THC blood level will result in a different degree of impairment. I think ideally, we should do away with all chemical testing or set the legal thresholds higher than they currently are, then actually test the person's reflexes and awareness of their environment. Test the factors that directly affect a person's ability to drive.
ReplyDeleteI'm definitely not advocating for the current field sobriety tests or anything like them though. In reality, they are used almost entirely to get the probable cause necessary for a breathalyzer test. Actually, in California, while cops by default mislead people into thinking they're required to take the field sobriety tests, in reality they have no legal obligation to do so. It's like cops "asking" to do a warrantless search of your car. I think the test of reflexes and awareness needs to be entirely computerized and in a private room where law enforcement cannot use intimidation or other tactics to affect the outcome.