Brett Hamil Puff Puff Pass the blame for shitty laws #bretthamil #hempfest

This is my response to Brett Hamil about I-502 and Hempfest.  > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0dCryr5XIfM
Brett Hamil obviously doesn’t know shit about the law, or legalization, or the vested interests behind I-502.

1. Brett says I-502 legalized cannabis.  That is not true.  Cannabis is still a Schedule One Drug on a State and Federal level.

In Section 10(a) of I-502, the law concedes to comply with all federal laws.   So if cannabis is a schedule one drug on a state and a federal level, then there are no tenth Amendment protections, because in order to receive 10th Amendment protections, state law must be complied with.  If someone is breaking both state and federal law, they receive no 10th Amendment protections.

Ref:   http://xcannabis.com/2013/06/if-cannabis-is-legal-in-washington-why-is-it-still-schedule-one/

section 10(a)>

“(a) Federal laws relating to marijuana that are applicable within
Washington state;”

http://sos.wa.gov/_assets/elections/initiatives/i502.pdf

Ref to Schedule one:  http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=69.50.204

I-502 specifically acknowledges the Federal jurisdiction, and submits to it.
Therefore a store opening with the permission of the LCB is unplausible.
The state can’t put state employees in jeopardy of violating federal law, especially with the specific acknowledgement of federal cooperation all throughout I-502.
If the Federal Government was to remove cannabis from the Federal CSA, or if the federal government lost jurisdiction via the commerce clause of the constitution by nullification of the commerce clause, then I-502 would possibly have more legal standing, though Washington state would also have to remove cannabis from the Washington State Uniform Controlled Substances Act as well. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause )

 

 

If cannabis is legal in Washington, why is it still a schedule one drug?
If cannabis is legal in Washington, why is it still a schedule one drug?

2.  Brett mocks the opposition to I-502 in the cannabis community for opposing legalization, while praising the ACLU for supporting I-502.   The gap that he leaves out is that the ACLU has not once supported a legalization initiative in Washington for over 75 years, and the two times previous to I-502 (faux legalization), they openly and publicly opposed it.  Similar to Peter Holmes.

Reference to the ACLU opposing truly ending prohibition:

http://xcannabis.com/2012/08/why-in-75-years-has-the-aclu-never-supported-a-cannabis-legalization-initiative/

 

Reference to Peter Holmes opposing truly ending prohibition:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eg93SBrwh1A

Without a Clue  ACLU
Without a Clue ACLU

3.  Brett gives motivations as to why people in the cannabis community would oppose legalization, citing selfish industry ambitions.  However I give the same reasons why attorney’s would oppose I-1149 and I-1068 but would support a pseudo-prohibition instead like I-502.   Lawyers make money off defending people from cannabis charges.  They would not want something like I-1149 to pass, because all I-1149 did was remove penalties.  It did not add any new penalties, and it did not consent to federal laws, nor did it violate any federal laws like I-502 does.  Since I-502 leave cannabis as a schedule one on a state level, and since I-502 (section 10a) concedes to federal authority (giving up 10th amendment protections) I-502 would be much more beneficial to the careers of lawyer who are members of the ACLU, much more than something like I-1068 or I-1149 would.  I-502 added new penalties, while not even truly removing old penalties.  I-1149 just removed old penalties.   But the ACLU opposed I-1149 and I-1068.   Why doesn’t Brett address that topic?

4.  Brett cites the irrational fear of people, citing that I-502 has not caused drugged driving arrests to go up.
As I cited in the video, the negative consequences of the 1937 Marihuana Tax Act took years to show up.
The 1937 Marihuana Tax Act was presented as a way to legitimize and tax cannabis crops.  In the end, it created the first cannabis prohibition on a federal level.   So just like I-502, the 1937 version was presented as a positive bureaucracy, but it ended up being prohibition in disguise, just like I-502.

5.  Brett claims that people opposed I-502 because of the potential that it would increase prices based on the 90%+ tax rates it would impose on cannabis.   He said that we do not know if that will happen, because the tax doesn’t start until November 2013.   However, based on the scheduling of cannabis on a state and federal level, I contest that there will be no “legal stores” based on current law under I-502.   But these tax structures have cause medical cannabis to be jeopardized with increased taxes and regulation, as it has been proposed that the Liquor Control Board now takes control over medical cannabis.

Ref:

New WA Legislation Would Put Medical Marijuana Industry In the Hands of the Liquor Control Board

http://thejointblog.com/new-wa-legislation-would-put-medical-marijuana-industry-in-the-hands-of-liquor-control-board/

Ref to Comparing I-502 to the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937:

http://xcannabis.com/2012/10/comparing-initiative-502-to-the-marihuana-tax-act-of-1937/

In the end, I think it’s disgusting how ill educated many of these pro-I502 pundits are.  People like Russ Belville and Dominick Holden seem to be educated but blindly supporting bad law.  I don’t know exactly why, other than Russ Belville for example was getting a salary from NORML (pot-lawyers) of over $30,000 per year at the time.  I don’t know if that is why, or if Russ is just a suckup to people with power.   Maybe a little bit of both.   But clearly I-502 is bad law.  NORML did very little to support previous legalization efforts in Washington, and the ACLU flat out opposed other legalization efforts.   For Brett Hamil to not criticize these groups for opposing legalization in the past, but to lay heavy responsibility and guilt on hempfest, is irresponsible and hypocritical.

 

If you are interested in REAL LEGALIZATION in Washington State, see this link:

http://reallegalization.org/

 


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *