On Friday, February 19, Sensible Washington co-founder Douglas Hiatt received an email from the ACLU of Washington’s drug policy director Alison Holcomb. Her email, which she also publicly posted on Hemp Talk, was in response to a private email Hiatt had sent her two days earlier asking what help the ACLU of Washington would give to Sensible Washington’s I-1068. For example, would the civil rights advocacy non-profit be willing to endorse I-1068?
Holcomb replied: “The ACLU supports marijuana legalization and will continue to work toward that goal. However, we will not be supporting I-1068 because it does not provide a responsible regulatory system.”
Holcomb also offered her justification for continuing to work with the Washington State Legislature in attempting to achieve marijuana legal reform. The Legislature this year failed to pass two ACLU of Washington-sponsored bills on marijuana legal reform and over the past decade the Legislature has proven incapable of offering sensible reform of the state’s marijuana laws to the citizens of Washington State.
Sensible Washington is disappointed that the ACLU of Washington is refusing to support I-1068. We believe that in so doing the group is ignoring the wishes of many of its members and contradicts its years of support for marijuana drug reform. We find it especially ironic that the organization which initially promoted legalization and reform in Washington State should retreat from its last 10 years of work on that front.
We are especially disturbed by the characterization of I-1068 as irresponsible based upon lack of regulation when the ACLU of Washington is well aware that the initiative could not include a regulatory scheme. Federal preemption issues make a comprehensive tax and regulate scheme impossible and the single issue rule for initiatives in Washington State does not help either. Those restrictions limit the scope of any initiative to removing criminal penalties for adults. If I-1068 is passed this November it will fall to the State Legislature to provide a legal framework for adult marijuana use, possession and cultivation. The ACLU of Washington has been involved in developing such frameworks, making its current position on I-1068 even more curious.
We are confused that the ACLU of Washington doesn’t seem to get that it is wrong for the State of Washington to continue to waste about $105 million a year in taxpayer funds to arrest, prosecute and imprison over 12,000 otherwise responsible citizens a year for marijuana-related offenses. We are confused that the ACLU of Washington would be willing to accept a state medical marijuana law which offers little legal protection to sick and dying patients. And we are utterly baffled that the ACLU of Washington does not get that the repeated failure of the Legislature to reform this state’s marijuana laws indicates that an initiative to the people is the only responsible method to achieve the kind of reform that the citizens of Washington State clearly desire.
We have a window of opportunity given current societal changes and public discontent with marijuana laws to assist the public in understanding the need for reform and how it can be accomplished sensibly. It is sensible to prevent the State of Washington from wasting about $105 million a year—and possibly tens of millions of dollars more—in taxpayer funds during the depths of a recession. It is sensible to end criminal penalties for responsible adults. It is sensible to protect medical marijuana patients now. Arrests of patients are expanding and the ACLU of Washington has not been effective in passing legislation to protect them.
And it is highly sensible and desirable to promote a reasoned discussion on the efficacy of the war on drugs in a statewide context that will allow regular voters to be engaged instead of merely relying upon state legislators—many of whom have their own political agendas and refuse to end marijuana prohibition in this state.
If the ACLU of Washington does not believe that Washington State is ready for change and to make history, then we ask that the organization remain neutral and refrain from providing false information to the public about I-1068 such as the mischaracterization of I-1068′s lack of regulation. It is also time for the ACLU of Washington—and Holcomb, in particular—to stop tossing about innuendoes that marijuana is not a benign drug, or that the removal of criminal penalties will lead to the promotion of criminal activity. As they well know, it is prohibition that leads to these evils—not the removal of the criminal penalties.
Did the ACLU of Washington miss the recent endorsement of I-1068 by retired Seattle Chief of Police Norm Stamper? Or the endorsement of former State Rep. Toby Nixon (R-Kirkland)? These responsible experts on drug policy reform understand that I-1068 is the beginning of the end of the failed war on drugs. Why doesn’t the ACLU of Washington?
The ACLU of Washington’s phone number is 206-624-2184 and its website is www.aclu-wa.org.
{ 31 comments }
Bruce,
A brief non-attorney response to your post without correct technical wording. I don’t think most of your questions are really concerns of the ACLU-WA but I agree they should be addressed now for voter information. I don’t know why the Secretary of State’s summary didn’t address any of this unless it’s because I-1068 only changes parts of the RCW that impose civil and criminal penalties for things that don’t affect public safety. The initiative does address safety issues in the
Statement of Purpose which will be important in interpreting ambiguities.
(5) The People intend to remove all existing civil and criminal
penalties for adults eighteen years of age or older who cultivate, possess, transport, sell, or use marijuana, without impacting existing laws proscribing dangerous activities while under the influence of marijuana or certain conduct that exposes younger persons to marijuana.
Safety related laws are scattered throughout the RCW and mostly aren’t marijuana specific even though impairment due to being high on marijuana might be why a person is in violation of a law. For example, driving safety should mostly be in Title 46 (Motor vehicles) and perhaps Title 47 (Public highways and transportation). There are a number of laws against driving unsafely that I-1068 has no effect on. Some are drug related and some include drug related matters within a broad sphere of conduct. Basically it’s illegal to drive a motor vehicle if you are not able to drive safely for any reason plus there are a lot of alcohol and other drug influenced laws concerning driving including many apparently looney tunes presumptions of intoxicated/impaired/negligent driving which may not really mean what they seem to mean.
I don’t see any existing marijuana law equivalent to the alcohol open container laws though I imagine such laws would be created if they don’t exist. However, I don’t think there is any serious doubt smoking marijuana while driving would be considered probable cause to arrest someone or at least do a field test for sobriety/impairment.
Firearms laws have sections relating to intoxication and firearms. Generally speaking RCW safety laws related to using or being under the influence of marijuana will be found in the sections on the specific matters the safety issues are related to. Operating a motor vehicle, firearms, bycycle riding on public streets, fire of any sort in areas when that is prohibited as a fire hazard, industrial safety and so on. I haven’t checked what RCW laws exist about public intoxication but imagine
those are mostly city, county, Parks & Recreation type laws anyway which I-1068 won’t affect. Same for smoking grass in public, like drinking in public or smoking in public (often not tobacco specific smoking restrictions anyway) which have been increasingly restricted at public beachs, public parks, outdoor restaurants and even your own front yard over the last few decades.
I-1068 definitely wouldn’t allow smoking grass in all public places. A lot of anti-smoking laws aren’t tobacco specific, aren’t state level or would be modified immediately. At the state level see RCW Chapter 70.160 (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=70.160&full=true) for an example. It seems to have been created as tobacco smoke restriction but the definitions aren’t
specific to tobacco. I think this was the law that went all the way to the state supreme court to determine if sage could be burned as incense during a religious ceremony in a large building.
Even if the courts ruled these laws were tobacco specific, it’s a safe bet the legislature would alter them to include cannabis long before the court decisions even occurred and with no more regard to whether anyone was actually exposed to second-hand smoke than bans on alcoholic beverages in parks have about exposure to second-hand alcohol. People will still have to rely on automobile exhaust and industrial pollution for their second-hand smoke.
I-1068 wouldn’t remove restrictions on sales to minors and would discourage them because penalties would be so high for that while low for sales to minors. As a practical matter sales to adults would be very limited. Business zoning and other business regulations would still be in force. Any large sales or regular small retail sales would attract the DEA like a group of heretics attracted the Inquisition. The sales that would be most protected would be things like sharing indoor growing expenses (which aren’t real sales), discreet sales to friends and minor things like that. Maybe sales as medicine would get more latitude, maybe not. Our state constitution says power comes from the consent of the governed, Chairman Mao said power flows from the barrel of a gun and the DEA clearly agrees with the Little Red Book on this matter.
“Who would regulate marijuana for safety?” Consumer safety? No government agency here has ever regulated it for safety during my lifetime. It’s been “you pays your money and you takes your chances”, the honor system or grow your own. I-1068 would encourage home growing and small purchases from people you know and can find if there’s a problem so I geuss the answer is that more people would regulate their own marijuana and the honor system would be more efficient than now because there would be less buying from strangers. I suspect I don’t understand the question. What safety issues are you concerned about?
Initiatives take effect 30 days after the election unless they contain a statement of a different effective date. The legislature may have pressing budget issues next year but it never lacks time to address trivial matters, introduce foolish bills or act hysterically. Review the bills that were introduced in the 5 most recent sessions and you won’t doubt that. If the legislature doesn’t pass bad laws that interfere with I-1068 it will help the state budget problems and the general economy.
Marijuana isn’t expensive to grow although indoor growing will raise the electric bill. What economists call the “crime tariff” is the reason it’s become so outrageously expensive. If people start growing their own, sharing and buying from friends a lot of money is going to stay in the regular economy to support businesses, employment, savings, etc., the state will get increased sales taxes and it’s going to stay more in the local economy. The state and local governments will save a lot of money that’s misspent on enforcing unjust marijuana related laws. We can hope they will use some of the increased revenue and money freed up by savings wisely.
I support your goals but don’t understand how you can dismiss the ACLU’s concerns. Does the law allow people to smoke marijuana while driving? Smoke it in all public places? Would restrictions on smoking tobacco also apply to marijuana? Would there be any restrictions on who could sell marijuana or where? Who could regulate marijuana for safety?
When would the law take effect? If immediately upon passage, that would be before the legislature had a chance to enact laws covering these issues. And of course the legislature will have pressing budget issues next year that will make it difficult to address marijuana right away.
Perhaps there is bad blood between your organization and the ACLU, but clearly there are substantive differences as well. You should have anticipated these issues earlier, regardless of whether the ACLU cooperated, and you need to address them now.
interesting theory
I think the ACLU is simply trying to protect their 501(c)(3) status:
I think they’re just covering their asses, but with a cop-out that I-1068 “does not provide a responsible regulatory system”. The real reason is that they’d rather not get involved and threaten their 501(c)(3) status.
The national ACLU is split into 501(c)(3) and 501(c)(4) parts, with the non-tax-deductible 501(c)(4) doing lobbying in Washington DC and the 501(c)(3) part refraining from commenting on legislation or candidates, and only doing court cases and education, but I don’t know that Washington State has such a two-part ACLU. If it doesn’t, then I suspect it follows the 501(c)(3) rules and refrains from getting “substantially” involved in lobbying.
Well written Philip. I’ve supported the ACLU in the past but will never give them another dime unless they reverse their position on this and support I-1068. If we can get enough people to write to them and say they’re past contributors to the ACLU but will withdraw their future support if their don’t reverse their position, we might get them to do so. Otherwise, we will support organizations that support freedom unequivocally.
I have read all the comments and I do not see anyone “bashing” the ACLU. It is almost unbellievable that the ACLU is not willing to support this initiative. By not supporting I-1068, they are basically saying they agree with arresting people for smoking pot. Unless they have a better idea and right now. I have waited all my life to see this happen and I really wonder how the ACLU came to this decision. It is very disappointing for me. This is not something to just ignore. ACLU recently lost a lot of funding money. Now they are going to lose more. I just stopped supporting them.
Philip, I believe you and Hiatt did a wonderful job drawing up the initiative and am proud to back it whole heartedly. I have more people telling me, “It’s about time! I can’t believe this has gone on as long as it has,” than I do the old prohibition talk. I do hear people saying the next move by the Government will be to tax the hell out of it so no one will be able to afford it. We shall see what their move is when it gets there.
Keep up the great work… and as an 18 year old son of a friend stated in the LEAP meeting, “why drink and drive when you can smoke and fly?”
Dare to struggle Dare to win
To my view the whole Olimpia political establishment including the ACLU are deliberately out of touch with the people that put them on the job. Their attitude is the nerve of people telling us any thing. Ignore the schmoes. So our solution needs to be select our own candidates friendly to decriminalization and vote them in
I’ve supported the ACLU in many ways. I have been grateful for their free speech stands, even when I disagree with the speech.
However, I will not continue my support of the ACLU until they rethink their position on this issue.
Phillip is right, it is disturbing to see the ACLU regress.
I just got off the phone with the aclu and i have to respect their position on this, its their right to do so. Its also our right to to keep moving forward with I-1068 anyhow. I believe that the aclu is wrong and We The People want and support this.
This position that the ACLU is taking speaks to their distrust of government to continue to improve and has huge implication of why civility might be suffering. Here is is the Logic. A civil liberties organization asks for people’s voices to be protected, choices to be looked after, and general rights to be upheld. Regarding I-1068 Their position is to no back the Initiative due it inability to regulation the rights it puts into effect. Correct me if I am wrong, but Civil Liberties are meant to enforce choice and provide freedom. We are in a society that has a freedom that has had removed from it, a basic right to partake of what the earth provides them. IE smoke Marijuana. I would think A civil Liberties organization such as the ACLU would recognize the Moral position of the proposed law, which is intended strictly for adult use and opens the door to new laws that can be more effective at stopping intoxicated drivers and help breakdown the injustice which is the current Washington State Law regarding Marijuana. The ACLU has instead taken an unmoral position of endorsing the continued confiscation of our land, therefore chosen to promote thievery.
Too much FUDing and infighting -Keep focused people!
Let the ACLU continue to focus their resources and efforts on defending the rights of transgender terrorists. This doesn’t necessarily apply to ACLU-WA, but the national ACLU ignores the drug war and focuses almost exclusively on fringe issues that do not impact the vast majority of Americans. All of the post-911 stuff the ACLU rails about existed as drug war exemptions to the U.S. Constitution long before 911. But for reasons that not clear to me, national ACLU seems to care more about the rights of foreigners intent on harming U.S. citizens than U.S. citizens who smoke pot. Go figure.
@phil i totally agree. i was referring to some of the comments that were, at least i felt, bashing the ACLU a little.
I like the aclu but this disturbs me alot. Im a medical marijuana pateint and nowhere did I see where it would infringe on my right to smoke cannabis. I may be wrong but it seems like the only time the aclu wants to step in is when it cocerns race…… Are we not black enough or hispanic enough to back up? I thought they were for civil rights….Well, HELLO ACLU our rights are being infringed apon where’s my help now????
we are not bashing the aclu of washington. we are pointing out that they took a private query from hiatt and responded to it publicly and stated a case for non support based on flawed reasoning. that’s not bashing. that’s stating the facts. the aclu picked a fight with us by going public. if alison had chosen to keep her position private then we wouldn’t have said word one publicly. she left us with no choice. we refuse to be kicked around by any organization. we refuse to have any organization mischaracterize our initiative.
we like the aclu of washington, but not on this issue and not the manner in which they chose to handle things.
the reality is that we reached out to the aclu of wa on multiple occasions, asking if they wanted to help with code language revisions for example. they passed each time. now alison is going around telling some people that we never reached out to her and the aclu of wa. that is an inaccurate statement on her part.
I agree that this really shouldn’t be used as a place to bash the ACLU. We need all the allies we can get, and trash talking certainly won’t help us change their minds. Maybe for those to the right, its good riddance, but you have to remember, Washington, particularly western, is a left leaning state. The ACLU is rather well liked here. I for one am a fan of the ACLU, so this is really disappointing. I hope that at least once we get it on the ballot they will reconsider.
Alison Holcomb will be my interview guest on NORML SHOW LIVE (http://live.norml.org) on Tuesday 2/23 to discuss the ACLU-WA position on I-1068. I have also made a call to Douglas Hiatt to join us, but if he is unavailable I would gladly have on another authorized representative of Sensible Washington. Feel free to contact me via email: russ@norml.org.
(BTW, I’m completely for I-1068. I believe whenever we’re forcing the public to discuss legalization, even when they say “no”, we’re winning. But I will allow Ms. Holcomb to have her say on the matter.)
to clarify, i’m not sure that anyone in the med mj community is opposing i-1068. not that i know of at any rate
I am a bit supprised the ACLU is not in support of this. It would be nice if they “had our backs” so to speak. It frusterates me that some of the medical community, and the ACLU will not support this, when we all have common goals. We are letting they small things split us up. We have the numbers people, but we need to stick together.
The Cannabis Defense Coalition has more information on this in-fighting at:
http://cdc.coop/1068_v_aclu
we’re not bashing them. we are questioning their decision however which seems legitimate under the circumstances.
I don’t think it’s a good idea to bash the ACLU – we need all the allies we can get. I have a call in for Alison, and I hope to better understand the ACLU’s process for endorsing initiatives, and how they came not to endorse ours. And finally, to convince them to come on board.
Demonising and attacking are appropriate for the real enemy – the ACLU is not that. Let’s not get hysterical.
As a member of the right of center crowd and a staunch, read rabid, supporter of medicinal marijuana, I view the ACLU like poster “Dave” articulated. I see the ACLU as a lawyer welfare scheme and consider them to be a bunch of eunuch fascists wannabe’s. They should be defending this initiative with the same zeal they show when pursuing folks who wish to post the 10 Commandments in the public square.
we cannot address everything with this initiative. i-1068 leaves in place current prohibitions for use, possession, etc. of marijuana for people under 18.
The “minor” issue seems a bit upsetting to me. are we saying in the initiative that it’s OK for adults, but that if kids do it, they’re facing jail time under the current existing laws?
Alison can always change her mind and decide to help! We need to ALL” come together” on this! Wouldn’t that be an amazing thing? We desperately need a peaceful, compassionate and positive change in our movement! Sensible Seattle has taken the ACTION in drafting this fine Initiative. All of us should take action to make sure this Initiative gets more signatures than it needs and passes in spades!!
thanks. it was a collaborative effort.
Really great reading, Philip… Nice work…
I think we are better off without the ACLU. They are widely seen as a joke, if not an outright deleterious influence, by people to the right of center.
At the end of the day, I think I-1068 contains all of the regulation that is needed – by continuing to prohibit cannabis use by minors. Beyond that, the state has no business inserting itself into the private use of cannabis by adults.
{ 1 trackback }