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.

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.

Lobbying

In general, no organization may qualify for section 501(c)(3) status if a substantial part of its activities is attempting to influence legislation (commonly known as lobbying). A 501(c)(3) organization may engage in some lobbying, but too much lobbying activity risks loss of tax-exempt status.

Legislation includes action by Congress, any state legislature, any local council, or similar governing body, with respect to acts, bills, resolutions, or similar items (such as legislative confirmation of appointive office), or by the public in referendum, ballot initiative, constitutional amendment, or similar procedure. It does not include actions by executive, judicial, or administrative bodies.

An organization will be regarded as attempting to influence legislation if it contacts, or urges the public to contact, members or employees of a legislative body for the purpose of proposing, supporting, or opposing legislation, or if the organization advocates the adoption or rejection of legislation.

Organizations may, however, involve themselves in issues of public policy without the activity being considered as lobbying. For example, organizations may conduct educational meetings, prepare and distribute educational materials, or otherwise consider public policy issues in an educational manner without jeopardizing their tax-exempt status.

Measuring Lobbying: Substantial Part Test

Whether an organization’s attempts to influence legislation, i.e., lobbying, constitute a substantial part of its overall activities is determined on the basis of all the pertinent facts and circumstances in each case. The IRS considers a variety of factors, including the time devoted (by both compensated and volunteer workers) and the expenditures devoted by the organization to the activity, when determining whether the lobbying activity is substantial.

Under the substantial part test, an organization that conducts excessive lobbying in any taxable year may lose its tax-exempt status, resulting in all of its income being subject to tax. In addition, section 501(c)(3) organizations that lose their tax-exempt status due to excessive lobbying, other than churches and private foundations, are subject to an excise tax equal to five percent of their lobbying expenditures for the year in which they cease to qualify for exemption.

Further, a tax equal to five percent of the lobbying expenditures for the year may be imposed against organization managers, jointly and severally, who agree to the making of such expenditures knowing that the expenditures would likely result in the loss of tax-exempt status.

Private foundations are subject to a different set of taxes on their lobbying expenditures; churches are not subject to excise taxes on excessive lobbying.

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.

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.