Poulsbo Legislator Signs on to Bill to Legalize Marijuana

Washington - One partial solution to the state’s budget woes could be the legalization of marijuana, according to Poulsbo Democrat Sherry Appleton.

The 23rd District representative was one of six House members, all Democrats, to sign their names to a bill on Monday that would call for pot to be legal and for the state to sell it and collect taxes on it at state liquor stores.

“This would be a way of not only saving money by not having to prosecute people who use small amounts of pot,” she said. “Millions of people smoke pot and were not deriving any taxation from it.”

While the House might hold a hearing about pot legalization or decriminalization, no one should expect to be able to buy marijuana over the state liquor store counter anytime soon.

“I don’t have any illusions that this is going to pass this year, but we’ve never had the conversation in a hearing or otherwise,” Appleton said.

A conversation appears to be all she expects. Appleton said House Speaker Frank Chopp has said he would allow a discussion of marijuana laws this session.

Kitsap County Sheriff Steve Boyer said a conversation is fine. He said it would premature of him to weigh in on the bill, but that he does have “a lot of reservations.”

“What really concerns me is big, bold experiments like this need to be thought out a bit,” Boyer said.

The sheriff said law enforcement officials have tools to measure alcohol usage when someone is driving, but the same tools are not in place for marijuana and other drugs. He said he would not say a lot of people would be driving impaired on pot, but “logic tells me you’re going to have an increase.”

Appleton describes marijuana as the state’s biggest cash crop. If a 2006 study by marijuana legalization advocate John Gettman is correct, it’s one of the state’s biggest agricultural products. He estimates that state growers sold more than $1 billion of pot that year and $1.1 billion in apples. Wheat came in a distant third at about $500 million.

Washington was the fifth-largest producer of pot in the United States that year, behind California, Tennessee, Kentucky and Hawaii. California’s production was valued at $13.8 billion, according to Gettman.

In his 2006 study, Gettman said he came up with his estimates by examining the federal government’s seizure of plants in various states.

“I believe that we have done a terrible job on the war on drugs. The truth is there are many citizens who do smoke marijuana,” Appleton said.

Californians are exploring legalization either through legislation or voter initiative, but any legalization effort would run afoul of the federal government’s stance on recreational use.

Appleton said she does not smoke marijuana herself. Still, having witnessed her husband die from cancer, the issue is somewhat personal to her.

“Pot was probably something that could have made him pain-free. So it is personal to me in the sense that I think we spend too much time putting people in jail for doing something millions of people do and get away with,” she said.

The bill number is HB 2401.


News Hawk- Ganjarden 420 MAGAZINE ® - Medical Marijuana Publication & Social Networking
Source: Kitsap Sun
Author: Steven Gardner
Copyright: 2009 The E.W. Scripps Co.
 
I'm against the state selling it. It would raise the prices to a point where everyone would be going to the black market to buy. As an example our liquor here is unbelievably high. We easily pay 3 times as much for a bottle of booze than you do in California. It needs to stay private.
 
I'm against the state selling it. It would raise the prices to a point where everyone would be going to the black market to buy. As an example our liquor here is unbelievably high. We easily pay 3 times as much for a bottle of booze than you do in California. It needs to stay private.

Government control and profiteering of cannabis is the only justice we can ever hope for. Aiming for it to be 100% legal to the extent that you can grow it at home is nothing more then a pipe dream, why would this be allowed if it does not benefit the government? Similar laws to alcohol and tobacco where it is legal to purchase, possess, consume but illegal to produce is what we should be aiming for as this will ensure government revenue, which is the only reason the government is going to consider change.

In addition, at present most activists are wasting their voices solely trying to point out the limit harm factor involved in the consumption of cannabis. If we put more of a focus on the financial benefits that would be involved going down the path of decriminalization we will get were we need to be a lot quicker. Things that need to be researched and put forward:
1. current annual government spend on trying to stop cannabis consumption.
2. average annual national consumption
3. costs that would be involved in producing these quantities from a business perspective
4. acceptable cost from a consumers perspective.
5. acceptable margin of profits for growers and retailers.

work these out and you work out possible government revenue, additionally you have figures to get investors interested in this path as well.
 
Yes to nowonknows! Gov't won't allow it unless they can tax and control it.
some of those statistics are available-but needs to be done by a group that doesn't want to legalize marijuana. The old argument that "drug cartels" will come in to US and try to run it is false. Just like cigarettes and liquor-people try to sell those illegally and the gov't tracks them down and arrests them. They can do the same with illegal growers/distributors etc...
 
Palcah, I don't believe the agenda of those who provide the financial possibilities is of too much concern, what is however is publicizing these details to the greatest extent possible. If someone is to do the research only to then publish them on this site, or in stoner mags then it would be a complete waste of time, where as a story published in a more publicly read domain, such as Time magazine for example, stating current estimated revenue Cannabis is generating to criminals, potential revenue decriminalization could produce both government and investors, change would be inevitable. If a corn farmer is aware of the limited harm factor of cannabis and is advised if the laws were to change and he were to replace his current crop with our plant his profits would increase, he would be for the notion. The same applies to retailers, such as tobacconists. The aim is quite simple, get as many people on side as possible, we have the consumers, the next group to target are those who could legally benefit financially should the laws change.

What is the potential national profit decriminalization could create?
What is the potential combined government revenue decriminalization could both save and create?
We need to start asking these questions and we will see change.
 
nowonknows-I agree. We want green energy? We have to make it profitable to Cos. to produce BUT they won't get anywhere if the Energy companies get to control the distribution, etc.. We can't even get SCE to agree to solar power issues because they don't want individuals producing TOO much power because then they can't get any profit from it. Man it is frustrating. Somewhat comparable to the MJ issue. To make it profitable to growers they need to see the bottom-line without being regulated out of business. You are right about the information as well. I think some news agencies will start to tune-in to the MJ legalization issues just from the momentum I think the issue has right now.
 
I know in Maryland you can grow your own tobacco. There was an article in my home town paper about a guy growing a rather large plot of tobacco for his own personal use. He hasn't had any problems. You just can't sell it.

Jimmy Carter (former president) made it legal for a person to brew up to 100 gallons of beer, per year, per adult, per household, not to exceed 200 gallons per year.

I think we should aim to be free.
 
I like your attitude and the Hemp plant history.
I have always tried to aim sharp-I faired well but was never that happy.
Aim high maybe not hit the mark but feel better about it.

Hmmmm!Thxs.
 
Is this really what you want? For Marlboro or other tabacco companies to take over the manufacturing and distribution of cannabis? Not me. I've seen what big business does to any product. Cannabis will end up being manipulated just like tabacco was. Any doubts that big business would add there proprietary recipes to cannabis to amke it addictive? They absolutely will. Big business will just turn cannabis into another cancer stick.
 
Back
Top Bottom