Talk:2012 Washington Initiative 502

Vandalization Alert...

People have apparently been messing with the fact posted in this article. Someone had changed the "Provisions" section to say that the law allowed "children over 12" to buy marijuana. Does anyone know about how to get pages locked? If not locking, folks at least need to keep an eye on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.21.81.92 (talk) 19:25, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

No need to do so. Folks normally just watch the article for changes and revert vandalism manually with an "undo." Rorybowman (talk) 21:17, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Initial Stub Up, Needs Wikifying

Quick and simple references to insert later

http://www.sos.wa.gov/elections/initiatives/Initiatives.aspx?y=2011&t=l
http://www.newapproachwa.org/sites/newapproachwa.ngphost.com/files/New_Approach_Press_Release_-_062111_FINAL.pdf
http://sos.wa.gov/_assets/elections/initiatives/i502.pdf
http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/legalize-it/Content?oid=8743947

Rorybowman (talk) 16:34, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Toker's comment below is not true. I-502 does legalize the possession of marijuana and redefines it in the list of controlled substances. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.13.221 (talk) 14:02, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I-502 does not legalize possession, as it changes no laws, and marijuana remains on the list of controlled substances in Washington State. (Uniform Controlled Substances act.) It's more accurate to say it decriminalizes it or better yet, creates an exemption from penalties. Compare that to alcohol which is legal, which allows an adult to pass a beer to another adult without being guilty of delivery of a controlled substance. --Rocket042 (talk) 00:07, 4 March 2012 (UTC)JohnToker

And now, one year later, Rocket042 sits with egg dripping off his face. Initiative 502 absolutely does legalize possession of up to one ounce of marijuana for any adult over the age of 21. 24.144.24.245 (talk) 03:26, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Provisions Section

I changed some of this wording to clarify age of majority issues and had originally laid out this section to track the text of the initiative, with one paragraph per section. I didn't label each paragraph by section because it seemed too pedantic, but it might be helpful to keep this in mind going forward. I'm not aware of any data on increased DUI costs, but if folks can provide WP:V, WP:RS on this, that would be great. Thanks! Rorybowman (talk) 05:41, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Exact Section 28 text on allocation of 1% for research as per http://sos.wa.gov/_assets/elections/initiatives/i502.pdf is "(c) Six-tenths of one percent to the University of Washington and four-tenths of one percent to Washington State University for research on the short and long-term effects of marijuana use, to include but not be limited to formal and informal methods for estimating and measuring intoxication and impairment, and for the dissemination of such research;" Rorybowman (talk) 19:01, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Support and Opposition

Great to see mention of emerging opposition groups, but it's probably preferable to cite the group's main presence rather than its Facebook pages. Perhaps include Dominic Holden's assessment as well? There is certainly some lively discussion going on over at The Stranger!

• http://www.patientsagainsti502.org/
• http://www.patientsagainsti502.org/media/a-letter-to-i-502-sponsors
• http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2011/10/20/why-do-some-medical-pot-patients-oppose-the-i-502-legalization-campaign?oid=10425135&show=comments&sort=desc&display=
• http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/high_pocrisy/Content?oid=10480419

Rorybowman (talk) 05:49, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I would stay away from Holden, as his Op-Ed's are inaccurate (opponents are not 'anti-pot' do not support a neutral point of view. I would the blog post from the SoS announcing the ballot certification: http://blogs.sos.wa.gov/FromOurCorner/index.php/2012/01/marijuana-initiative-502-certified-to-legislatureballot/ Rocket042 (talk) 00:07, 4 March 2012 (UTC)JohnToker

Might it be useful to begin gathering both pro and anti-502 activity from The Stranger? There has been a lot within the past month, as the partial list below indicates

• http://www.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2011/11/29/physician-perspective-i-502-betrays-medical-marijuana
• http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/stoner-clash/Content?oid=11413045
• http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2012/02/23/anti-pot-campaign-to-be-funded-by-doctors-lawyers-and-maybe-medical-pot-dispensaries
• http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2012/02/24/sorry-medical-marijuana-activists-your-study-doesnt-prove-that-i-502-will-nab-sober-drivers-for-duis
• http://www.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2012/02/28/you-cant-legalize-pot-without-setting-realistic-dui-penalties-for-stoned-drivers
• http://www.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2012/03/01/were-not-anti-legalization-were-anti-bad-policy
• http://www.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2012/03/02/are-stoners-throwing-patients-under-the-bus
• http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/pot-activists-vs-pot-activists/Content?oid=12927887
• http://www.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2012/03/07/the-facts-on-i-502

Are there other solid articles from here or other sides that we can reliably cite for a more nuanced and verifiable article? Rorybowman (talk) 19:20, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

• http://blogs.seattleweekly.com/dailyweekly/2012/03/the_science_behind_stoned_driv.php
• http://www.seattleweekly.com/2012-03-07/news/the-high-road/

Just a few more links toward reliable citations. Rorybowman (talk) 00:23, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Is Libertarian presidential candidate Gary Johnson notable enough to merit mentioning his endorsement as per at http://today.seattletimes.com/2012/03/libertarian-presidential-candidate-endorses-washington-marijuana-legalization/ ? Rorybowman (talk) 01:03, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Divide Into Sections Based on Reason for Opposition?

Given that the largest thread of opposition currently seems to be concern about the DUI provisions and other (economic or law-enforcement) opposition, does anyone else think it makes sense to create sub-categories about "DUI opposition" and "other opposition?" Rorybowman (talk) 19:35, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I have done this but notice that many of the anti-502 references are broken, either removed from Facebook or lost in the apparent transition from PatientsAgainstI502.org to NoOnI502.org. Hopefully things will stabilize shortly so that clearer references to opposition arguments can be made. Rorybowman (talk) 00:07, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Move Page to Washington Initiative 502 (2012) ?

Now that the legislature has adjourned and this is headed to the ballot, does it make sense to change the referenced year? I'm thinking it does but am open to other views, either for or against. Any thoughts? Rorybowman (talk) 22:44, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I do not understand. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:01, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

The initiative was filed in 2011 but the issue will be on the ballot in 2012, which may or may not create confusion. I resolved this by creating a simple redirect so the issue seems resolved for now. Rorybowman (talk) 21:58, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Would it make any sense to change it to (2011-2012)? Just throwing that out there. Belchfire (talk) 18:00, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Given that we are showing good traffic and that search engine placement is excellent, I'd suggest leaving it where it is with the current (technically correct) year. I don't think there is really any danger of confusion. Listing two years seems even more confusing, while the current redirects are working fine. At this point I'd suggest not bothering. Rorybowman (talk) 22:52, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

To be in keeping with other state initiatives, this article should be moved back to its original title, Washington Initiative 502 (2011). This would make it consistent with other US measures across states and years. Rorybowman (talk) 23:53, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

RCW 69.51A

Rorybowman, on April 13 you reverted part of my previous edit assuming that it was accidental. In fact, I did mean to delete the reference to RCW 69.51A. Citations to code provisions in the lead section are generally inappropriate pursuant to WP:LEAD. The lead section should be a brief summary and shouldn't get into the weeds. The last sentence reads fine without the subordinate clause. --Nstrauss (talk) 05:24, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

No response in 3+ weeks, so I'm reverting. --Nstrauss (talk) 19:35, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! I moved this further down into the "provisions" section. Although originally divided into paragraphs based on the different sections of the initiative, this seems the most logical place for this as that original structure for this section is changing. Rorybowman (talk) 21:57, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Use of "Cannabis" rather than "Marijuana"

Although I appreciate that the term "cannabis" is strongly preferred by some reform advocates, the language of this bill consistently uses the word marijuana and so I think the language of the initiative should take precedence here. Before making such a consistent change, though, I would like to broach the issue here for discussion. Should this particular article use the word "cannabis" or "marijuana?" Rorybowman (talk) 05:55, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

• MARIJUANA because that is the language used in the specific legislation this article addresses. Rorybowman (talk) 05:55, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
• Use 'marijuana' when quoting the direct statements of individuals or the text of the law; 'cannabis' at all other times. Reason: "marijuana" is a racist construct put in place by Harry J. Anslinger and his Bureau of Narcotics in the 1930s when he was campaigning to have cannabis made illegal by Congress. The word "marijuana" originated in Mexico and was virtually unknown to the American public prior to that time; Anslinger propagandized it as a way to play on the fears of white Americans who still had memories of Poncho Villa fresh in their minds. Call the plant by its correct name in the encyclopedia: cannabis. Everybody knows what that means, and if they don't, they need to learn (which, after all, is why we're here). Belchfire (talk) 06:05, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Superb points. I had not noticed that RCW 69.51a had been renamed "Medical cannabis," but the initiative uses that word only three times: once in reference to RCW 69.51a and then twice referring to the plant. All products regulated are defined as marijuana/marihuana at the top of page 5 (http://sos.wa.gov/_assets/elections/initiatives/i502.pdf). Calling the plant "cannabis" and using that term outside of I-502 regulatory reference makes sense, but the initiative title and language explicitly define and address "marijuana," no? Would you agree that it make sense to call the plant cannabis in all cases but use "marijuana" to reference the regulated substance in this initiative? Rorybowman (talk) 16:30, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

IIRC, sponsors of the medical "marijuana" initiative (scare quotes intentional) used that word because they realized much of the public was clueless. I didn't realize it had since been renamed, but if the Legislature did that, I see it as an encouraging sign of public acceptance.

I can't speak to I-502, other than to point out that I-502 is The Man's idea of cannabis legalization (John McKay, for gorshsakes!), not a law being promulgated by actual users of the herb. The second part of your post echoes my own points - use 'cannabis' when speaking in the voice of Wikipedia, 'marijuana' when quoting sources.

BTW, I recognize your handle from the comments section at the TNT. Nice to see you here. :-) Belchfire (talk) 16:43, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

The (currently catch-all) "Concerns" Section

My hope in tightening up the "provisions" section was to make it more clearly referential, and much of what was clearly not a provision explicitly in the text or immediately related (such as the March OFM estimates) was moved into the "concerns" section, which is mostly a jumbled mess of unattributed criticism. My initial thought is to wait a week or three and then delete assertions without references, since many of these are touched on (with references) in the "opposition" section further down. Another possibility is to try and divide up "concerns" by section number, to parallel "provisions" just above it. What are other editors' thoughts on this? Currently this section is a mess without clear structure or flow. Rorybowman (talk) 15:38, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

There's really no need to wait. Most of the unsourced material has been there for a while; if somebody was going to add sources it would have happened by now. Not only is the section a jumbled mess, but the mere fact it is called "Concerns" is something of a POV issue. I'll let this discussion simmer for a bit, but if I get time I may do some polishing myself. Belchfire (talk) 18:27, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

The link to OFM's 2011 analysis of HB1550 is now dead, so I moved the enforcement-savings pieces next to the other OFM analysis above and shall probably delete the entire section next week unless something can be done. I'm not sure that there is anything in it that is not touched on more succinctly elsewhere. Rorybowman (talk) 18:39, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Would it be possible to mention in this article something about I-692 (1998) (BTW the copy/paste link feature doesn't support "(" & ")" very well) or even the current medical cannabis legislature that are not affected by recreational use legalization. See RCW 69.51A. It seems counter productive to ignore the passage from total illegality to partial to complete legality (yet to be 100% legal in WA as sales, distribution and cultivation are still illegal as the are not defined by I-502 yet). I would be willing to help write an article about this should there be a need for it. Pilsnermonster (talk) 21:49, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I-692 is currently mentioned in the "See Also" section but didn't really come up. Such a section is a logical thing, but I'd suggest it would be both more logical and useful in the more general article Decriminalization of non-medical cannabis in the United States. Rorybowman (talk) 23:10, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Removal of Year Number (2011)

It seems rash and bit too WP:Bold to have so abruptly moved this page from Washington Initiative 502 (2011) to the atemporal Washington Initiative 502 and I would ask that the editor who did so please move it back. Although correct that there is no other Washington Initiative 502 at present, past practice has been to include the year number on previous statewide measures for Washington and many states (such as Oregon) *do* re-use ballot measures, making such references handy. The yearless redirect was more than adequate and the loss of filing year from the main article title goes against past practice. Please return it as it was. Rorybowman (talk) 14:55, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Discussion started at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States#Include years in voter Initiative article titles?, since this issue covers a wide range of articles and not just this one. Ego White Tray (talk) 17:00, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

As noted there, I am strongly in favor of including parenthetic years for all US ballot measure articles as a matter of consistency, whether a state re-uses numbers or not. The basic title format of State + Type + Number + (Parenthetical year) provides maximal information very concisely: California Proposition 13 (1978), Oregon Ballot Measure 9 (1992), Washington Referendum 71 (2009), Washington Initiative 502 (2011), and Colorado Amendment 64 (2012). Redirects such as Proposition 13 can easily be established for famous items or from year-to-year, with those easily converted do disambiguation pages as needed should similar titles be WP:Notable. The State + Type + Number + (Parenthetical year) format is well established for many states, if not most, and this seems to me the simplest, soundest, most comprehensive and least ambiguous solution. This article, with its previous parenthetical year number, was consistent with long-established practice across all of Wikipedia. The permanent article should include the year number, with redirects such as Initiative 502 created or changed as necessary. Rorybowman (talk) 15:32, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

To be in keeping with other state initiatives, this article should be moved back to its original title, Washington Initiative 502 (2011). This would make it consistent with other US measures across states and years. Rorybowman (talk) 23:53, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Washington Initiative 1029 which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 03:16, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, both this article and that for Referendum 74 were unilaterally moved earlier this fall. Now the well-meaning anti-DAB disease is spreading with no sense of historical relevance and how issues such as cannabis reform, charter schools, GLBT relationships, etcetera are tracked and used over time across Wikipedia for many states. Very annoying. Given how consistent these articles have been in the past, I assumed there already *was* an established standard. Rorybowman (talk) 15:46, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

The result of the move request was: 'not moved. There appears to be no consensus for the proposed moves.' Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:03, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Post-Election WP:RS Follow-Up

• Office of National Drug Control Policy director says "You’ll continue to see enforcement against distributors and large-scale growers as the Justice Department has outlined."
• State rules severely restrict zoning for retail pot locations in Seattle area.
• Dominic Holden dismisses concerns about "drug czar" Gil Kerlikowske's allegedly-announced crackdown.
• Washington issues first legal pot business license

Just a quick place to collect quality WP:RS for possible, later use. Rorybowman (talk) 17:33, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

References

Erroneous map of county results

The map of county results

• 
  County Results

incorrectly indicates that Chelan County voted against I-502, although Washington Secretary of State website indicates that Chelan County actually voted for I-502 by a margin of 51.85% to 48.15%. There is considerable consternation in Chelan County on this issue which makes me wonder if this isn't blatant vandalism? I will correct the map as time allows.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pinus jeffreyi (talk • contribs) 21:59, 11 July 2016‎

Making wild accusations of "blatant vandalism" without bothering to check the edit history of the map creator, User:ScottSunday, is lazy and irresponsible. That is why the Wikipedia policy Assume good faith prohibits that kind of personal attack. Everyone makes mistakes. We fix them and move on. It's no big deal.

Anyway, I've removed the map. We already have a much better map in the lead that doesn't give a distorted image of the vote based on the irrelevant size of the counties. I think we should generally avoid maps that color results in a geographic area without accounting for the number of votes cast. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:22, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

OK, I went and uploaded a corrected version to Commons in case anybody uses the file there won't be any confusion. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:08, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I wasn't trying to insult anyone, sorry if I hurt anyone's feelings. Glad to see the corrected version up so quick, well done! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pinus jeffreyi (talk • contribs) 07:43, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

A high quality map, but I find the colors of it suboptimal. It is difficult to read for people with red–green color deficiency (the same applies to this map). The inscriptions are really very tiny. --Furfur ^{⁂ Diskussion} 11:43, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Rename to Cannabis in Washington (state) or split off, or what?

WikiProject Cannabis has been gradually adding state-level articles for cannabis, and we're nearly at the goal of having a dedicated Cannabis article for every state in the country.

Right now WA is kind of a weird exception because instead of Cannabis in Washington (state) (currently a redirect to here) being the main article, the main article is this one, Washington Initiative 502. It's also the fifth-most popular state-level cannabis article with 5,000+ views per month (see this list if you're curious about cannabis-by-state pageviews).

We have a couple options:

• Leave it as it is, but I think that's part of what's dragging pageviews down below other legal states, it makes this topic less googleable.
• Re-name this page as Cannabis in Washington (state)
• Split this page, with part of it going to Cannabis in Washington (state) and the finer details going to Washington Initiative 502

What do folks think? I think there should be a page simply called Cannabis in Washington (state) both for consistency across Wikipedia and also as search-engine optimization, the questions is how best to do it, so I'm posting a request for comment on the main editors of this page over the last year. Let's mutually arrive at a method that most easily gets the right info to our readers. Goonsquad LCpl Mulvaney (talk) 23:01, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

I think split. This is a specific voter initiative that was on the ballot, and should cover the initiative and the initiative only. Cannabis in Washington (state) as an issue involves more than just I-502, including the medical cannabis program, which existed before I-502, and was folded into the recreational regulations after I-502. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:16, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

• Split to Marijuana in Washington (state) per WP:COMMONNAME. We don't call it cannibis, we say marijuana. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:22, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
• Create new general article Pinged in and with a fairly marginal (RfC or ANI induced) involvement. This is a detailed article about a specific piece of legislation, only implicitly is it about use/legal framework etc. in the state, I wouldn't therefore see renaming as a viable option. The best alternative stategy, would be creating a general 'Cannabis in Washington' article linked to this one, and this being largely left intact. Pincrete (talk) 23:26, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

I've started a new article at Cannabis in Washington (state), with some material from recycling ledes from legislation-specific articles, but also building further for points not yet covered in other articles. I welcome others interested to join me in building this core article. Goonsquad LCpl Mulvaney (talk) 08:38, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm having trouble figuring out when Washington state decriminalized marijuana (so illegal but just civic violation, 1970s?). Can someone help build the section for that? Goonsquad LCpl Mulvaney (talk) 08:42, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

@Dennis Bratland:, every single state and country is written as "Cannabis in XYZ" since that's the more wide-spread and technical term than marijuana. You'd have to take it up with WikiProject Cannabis if you object to the terminology, and it seems they've hashed out the debate pretty thoroughly. Goonsquad LCpl Mulvaney (talk) 08:48, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

No they'll have to take it up with WikiProject Washington. Policy is clear: use common names, not technical jargon. Follow sources, not editor original research. Cannabis is stems and seeds; this is about the drug marijuana. Which is why the secondary sources use the correct term. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 09:06, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Move requested at Talk:Cannabis in Washington (state). You pretty much have to ignore the entire article title policy to justify using cannabis on a US article; it's the preferred term in UK English, but everything in the Category:Cannabis in the United States should use the word marijuana, not cannabis. I can't understand what could have clouded the judgement of the editors at WikiProject Cannabis to make this muddled and confused decision. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:31, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

• SPLIT with slight preference to "Marijuana in Washington" v "Cannabis in Washington" based on the explicit legal definition of marijuana adapted by I-502 and general US usage. This article was about a particular, historically important piece of legislation. A cannabis article might include industrial hemp, etcetera, but the psychoactive product was legally renamed "marijuana" by passage of I-502. Most of this article related to the legislation and the first 2-3 years should remain here after the split. Rorybowman (talk) 15:10, 9 November 2016 (UTC)