PDA

View Full Version : Cannabis Legalization Movement Split in Seattle, WA Over Taxation




dannno
08-19-2011, 03:58 PM
Hempfest is this weekend and there are two competing ballot measures for decriminalization that will be collecting signatures.

NAW = Legalizes store-front sales, taxes, bans personal growing

YEP = Decriminalizes possession and growing

Article: "The Stoner Standoff"


The group is called New Approach Washington—known for short as NAW.

So what's the problem?

"I think NAW is a piece of shit," says Douglas Hiatt, who ran the campaign for another initiative, Sensible Washington, which raised relatively little money and failed to gather enough signatures two years in a row. He believes federal drug laws would nullify most of the NAW measure, and a provision that establishes an automatic penalty for driving under the influence of pot would turn medical marijuana patients who drive into criminals.

"I think it's divided the community pretty severely," Hiatt says about the hundreds of volunteers he's worked with and Seattle's robust medical marijuana industry. He calls the NAW measure "an expensive publicity stunt."

So on July 27, a new group filed a petition to legalize marijuana, based on the text of Sensible Washington's twice-failed measure. This statewide initiative would simply remove all state penalties for marijuana. That approach, says spokesman Don Skakie, would let you "grow it for yourself" without paying taxes on the pot.

The name of that new group? Yes End Penalties—or YEP!

That's right: It's YEP versus NAW.

"It's positive versus negative, as far as I'm concerned," Skakie says. He acknowledges that the backers of his measure, which he estimates needs 300,000 signatures, "don't have funding." :(

http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/stoner-standoff/Content?oid=9540215

Vessol
08-19-2011, 04:03 PM
YEP for me.

dannno
08-19-2011, 04:19 PM
YEP for me.

CA was in a similar position, but we didn't have any choice. I can't decide if I'd vote "Yes" for both, which one would cancel out the other if they both passed, etc..

But I'm pretty sure NAW is better than NADA.

CaptainAmerica
08-19-2011, 04:20 PM
YEP. Keep government hands off of natural plants. The only reason the government would "permit" the use of weed with taxation is to increase the tax farm revenue.

axiomata
08-19-2011, 04:24 PM
Does YEP make it illegal to fire employees who employers believe have their job performance affected by marijuana abuse like the failed CA bill did?

specialK
08-19-2011, 04:38 PM
NAW would cause a huge problem for border officials here. So many people here already drive to Seattle to shop or buy their gas in USA. My own tenant and many other people I know don't even buy gas in Canada anymore. A little jaunt across the border to fill up one's tank and replenish pot supply (probably at a cheaper price) would force our own province to challenge the drug laws. So, for that reason I would love to see NAW.

Theocrat
08-19-2011, 05:18 PM
I'm with YEP on that one.

dannno
08-19-2011, 05:22 PM
Does YEP make it illegal to fire employees who employers believe have their job performance affected by marijuana abuse like the failed CA bill did?

That was a bullshit reason not to support the CA bill.

If your job performance is affected by 'marijuana abuse', then fire the person for poor job performance, not for the marijuana. Problem solved.

AGRP
08-19-2011, 05:33 PM
Expect your "fun" freedoms to be taxed.

If they could tax your sex, they'd tax that too.

squarepusher
08-19-2011, 05:37 PM
That was a bullshit reason not to support the CA bill.

If your job performance is affected by 'marijuana abuse', then fire the person for poor job performance, not for the marijuana. Problem solved.

California had 3 ballot initiatives too, CCI was the real good one, it didn't get signatures due to lack of financial backing and confusion.
The Richard Lee ballot did get signatures due to his several million dollar investment, however it didn't pay off for him since history shows it didn't pass.

axiomata
08-19-2011, 08:09 PM
That was a bullshit reason not to support the CA bill.

If your job performance is affected by 'marijuana abuse', then fire the person for poor job performance, not for the marijuana. Problem solved.

I didn't not support the CA bill; I would have voted for it if I was a resident, but I think it is a good idea to offer the best legalization bill possible. The best bill would not create a protected class of marijuana users as the CA bill did.

nobody's_hero
08-19-2011, 08:31 PM
If your job performance is affected by 'marijuana abuse', then fire the person for poor job performance, not for the marijuana. Problem solved.

Yeah, until the lawyers get their hands on the employer and find out that the employee was using weed, and therefore has a 'right' to show up to work under the influence.

Don't forget that it was California, the leading state where a business owner essentially gives up his private property rights from the moment he hires his first employee.

Jandrsn21
08-19-2011, 08:40 PM
You can grow all the ingredients for beer, brew it, and give it all away, without taxes. Also same for cigars, grow the tobacco, dry it, store it, roll it, and smoke it, all free from taxes. Why should marijuana be any different! Also if individuals can't grow it, who can? Corporations, Mexicans, Canadians? Makes no sense whatsoever, just end the prohibition!