Is No on I-502’s “Important Resources” webpage an honest mistake or a blatant lie?

I was perusing No on I-502’s webpage “Important Resources” when I noticed that while some of what is stated is true other portions of the information provided on this page are in stark contrast to the actual language put forth by I-502 which places these sections of the “Important Resources” page into direct conflict with the actual language, or facts, of I-502 making these lines of text untrue, or false, if you prefer, to say the least.

The easiest way in which to address the issue at hand is to first look at the pertinent content of the page and then sequentially evaluating the assertions put forth on the page to see what facts exist to establish the truths and falsehoods within in their statements to then determine whether it was an honest mistake or a blatant lie.

To do this I have taken the liberty of copying and then pasting the text that is most relevant to the question at hand, ‘if this was a mistake or a lie’, while preserving the integrity of the content as best I can with the editing features provided by WordPress.com to their bloggers.

Now, before moving on to the question of this day I want you to keep in mind the following as we evaluate No on I-502’s propositions:

If the goal is to deceive to achieve one’s own end, the person(s) who set this goal must use honesty in the majority of their words and actions insofar as honesty is a tool that develops the trust necessary to effectively use dishonesty as a means to achieve the goal of deception to achieve one’s own end.

Moving back to and rejoining the issue at hand with the question of the day.

Is this an honest mistake or a blatant lie?

Again, to determine this we must compare the following text with the actual text of I-502 but first I present to you, as promised, the unadulterated content of No on I-502’s “Important Resources” web page, which is as follows:

Important Resources

This page contains important information regarding current state law, what will change if I-502 passes, and REAL scientific evidence that contradicts the opposition’s stance on the per se DUI limit. Additional legal opinions are also listed below. Be informed and help take a stance against this unscientific and unnecessary initiative for Washington!

Current state law:

(1) A person is guilty of driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or any drug if the person drives a vehicle in this state:

a) And the person has, within two hours after driving, an alcohol concentration of 0.08 or higher as shown by analysis of the person’s breath or blood made under RCW 46.61.506; or

b) While the person is under the influence of or affected by intoxicating liquor or any drug; or

c) While the person is under the combined influence of or affected by intoxicating liquor and any drug.

Current Washington State Law – RCW 46.61.502


How this law will change if Initiative 502 is passed into law:

(d) that the THC concentration of the driver’s blood is 5.00 or more; or the driver is under age 21 and the THC concentration of the driver’s blood is above 0.00

Text of Washington Initiative 502 (PART V – Driving Under the Influence of Marijuana)

What this change means: A 5 ng (nano-gram) / ml (milliliter) THC blood content limit (or 0 ng/ml if under 21) will be mandated that will find individuals instantly guilty of a DUID if they’re above the limit, regardless of impairment, with no ability to present a legal defense in court to prove otherwise (given it’s a per se limit with no rebuttable presumption included).

Scientific Opinions:

 Let us rejoin and move onto the sequential evaluation of this content starting with the first sentence of the first paragraph. This, if you recall, goes as follows:

“This page contains important information regarding current state law, what will change if I-502 passes, and REAL scientific evidence that contradicts the opposition’s stance on the per se DUI limit.”

What we have here is a complex sentence conjoined to with another sentence to form a compound sentence out of the set, which makes three claims:

  1. The information provided is of a factual nature and relates specifically to:
    1. “current state law”; and
    2. “what will change if I-502 passes”
  2. This page provides “REAL scientific evidence that contradicts the opposition’s stance”

Claim 1

To address the first claim that the information provided is of a factual nature and relates specifically to current state law [Revised Code of Washington]. This is factually accurate in that the portion of the law’s language is accurate, it is not, however, all the pertinent text contained within the Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 46.61.502 Driving under the influence that is the current state of affairs for cannabis consumers or the changes put forth by I-502.

While this is not an outright indication of any mishap or malfeasance, it certainly leaves out pertinent information about the language of the Driving under the influence law as it currently pertains to existing medical and recreational cannabis consumers in Washington State. Additionally, by out leaving out these sections the reader is unable to see all the changes proposed to this specific Section, RCW 46.61.502.

To better examine the reality of the current situation and best ponder the possibilities proposed by I-502 we must examine the full, pertinent text of, RCW 46.64.502 edited into No on I-502’s webpage content (distinguished by italics), followed by the full, pertinent, text of I-502:

Current state law:

(1) A person is guilty of driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or any drug if the person drives a vehicle in this state:

a) And the person has, within two hours after driving, an alcohol concentration of 0.08 or higher as shown by analysis of the person’s breath or blood made under RCW 46.61.506; or

b) While the person is under the influence of or affected by intoxicating liquor or any drug; or

c) While the person is under the combined influence of or affected by intoxicating liquor and any drug.

(2) The fact that a person charged with a violation of this section is or has been entitled to use a drug under the laws of this state shall not constitute a defense against a charge of violating this section.

(3) It is an affirmative defense to a violation of subsection (1)(a) of this section which the defendant must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant consumed a sufficient quantity of alcohol after the time of driving and before the administration of an analysis of the person’s breath or blood to cause the defendant’s alcohol concentration to be 0.08 or more within two hours after driving. The court shall not admit evidence of this defense unless the defendant notifies the prosecution prior to the omnibus or pretrial hearing in the case of the defendant’s intent to assert the affirmative defense.

(4) Analyses of blood or breath samples obtained more than two hours after the alleged driving may be used as evidence that within two hours of the alleged driving, a person had an alcohol concentration of 0.08 or more in violation of subsection (1)(a) of this section, and in any case in which the analysis shows an alcohol concentration above 0.00 may be used as evidence that a person was under the influence of or affected by intoxicating liquor or any drug in violation of subsection (1)(b) or (c) of this section.

I-502 Bookmarked; Proposed Changes in Language for RCW 46.61.502 [PDF pages 56-58]

Sec. 33. RCW 46.61.502 and 2011 c 293 s 2 are each amended to read as follows:

Code Rev/AI:crs 55 I-2465.1/11

(1) A person is guilty of driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, marijuana,or any drug if the person drives a vehicle within this state:

(a) And the person has, within two hours after driving, an alcohol concentration of 0.08 or higher as shown by analysis of the person’s breath or blood made under RCW 46.61.506; or

(b) The person has, within two hours after driving, a THC concentration of 5.00 or higher as shown by analysis of the person’s blood made under RCW 46.61.506; or

(c) While the person is under the influence of or affected by intoxicating liquor, marijuana, or any drug; or

(((c))) (d) While the person is under the combined influence of or affected by intoxicating liquor, marijuana, and any drug.

(2) The fact that a person charged with a violation of this section is or has been entitled to use a drug under the laws of this state shall not constitute a defense against a charge of violating this section.

(3)(a) It is an affirmative defense to a violation of subsection

(1)(a) of this section, which the defendant must prove by a preponderance of the evidence, that the defendant consumed a sufficient quantity of alcohol after the time of driving and before the administration of an analysis of the person’s breath or blood to cause the defendant’s alcohol concentration to be 0.08 or more within two hours after driving. The court shall not admit evidence of this defense unless the defendant notifies the prosecution prior to the omnibus or pretrial hearing in the case of the defendant’s intent to assert the affirmative defense.

(b) It is an affirmative defense to a violation of subsection (1)(b) of this section, which the defendant must prove by a preponderance of the evidence, that the defendant consumed a sufficient quantity of marijuana after the time of driving and before the administration of an analysis of the person’s blood to cause the defendant’s THC concentration to be 5.00 or more within two hours after driving. The court shall not admit evidence of this defense unless the defendant notifies the prosecution prior to the omnibus or pretrial hearing in the case of the defendant’s intent to assert the affirmative defense.

(4)(a) Analyses of blood or breath samples obtained more than two hours after the alleged driving may be used as evidence that within two hours of the alleged driving, a person had an alcohol concentration of 0.08 or more in violation of subsection (1)(a) of this section, and in any case in which the analysis shows an alcohol concentration above 0.00 may be used as evidence that a person was under the influence of or affected by intoxicating liquor or any drug in violation of subsection (1)(((b) or)) (c) or (d) of this section.

(b) Analyses of blood samples obtained more than two hours after the alleged driving may be used as evidence that within two hours of the alleged driving, a person had a THC concentration of 5.00 or more in violation of subsection (1)(b) of this section, and in any case in which the analysis shows a THC concentration above 0.00 may be used as evidence that a person was under the influence of or affected by marijuana in violation of subsection (1)(c) or (d) of this section.

Now, if you actually bothered to take the time to read all that and if you paid attention then you can clearly see that there is a lot more to RCW 46.61.502 as well as to the proposed changes within the I-502 language that No on I-502 left out.

Such as, it establishes full protection against a DUI conviction for all levels of inactive THC, or THC COOH (by virtue of the THC Content as defined on PDF page 11 of I-502 Bookmarked), found within a drivers system, it establishes some level of protection against a DUI conviction for active THC concentrations found within a drivers system, it establishes an affirmative defense for active THC concentrations within a drivers system that no other consumer of drugs, licit or illicit, receives currently under state law. In addition, it distinguishes cannabis, speaking within the confines of this Section, legally from all other substances considered drugs (both licit and illicit) giving cannabis consumer’s special considerations under the law, which other patients and recreational consumers of these other “drugs” do not receive.  You can also see that most of the proposed changes in the language are parallels to the language written for alcohol.

Admittedly, I have skipped ahead slightly at this point you can see there is more to the current individual laws that I-502 will change when passed.

Whether it was intentional or accidental is still indeterminable at this point so let us press on.

Claim 2

Next in line for examination is the second claim that No on I-502 makes about what will happen if I-502 passes into law. To do this best we must break down this claim down into its core parts and addressing each in turn.

The first part of claim 2 is:

(d) that the THC concentration of the driver’s blood is 5.00 or more; or the driver is under age 21 and the THC concentration of the driver’s blood is above 0.00

The actual change in the language pertaining to this line:

(((c))) (d) While the person is under the combined influence of or affected by intoxicating liquor, marijuana, and any drug.

That statement is terribly disconcerting in that it does not match any of the changes I-502 writes into the statutes pertaining specifically to changing the language of RCW 49.61.502, also this law pertains to those 21 and older not to those under the age of 21. The law pertaining to those under 21 is RCW 49.61.503, while I-502 does make changes to that law and the changed involves a 0.00 ng/mL whole blood limit it has no bearing on the changes put forth by I-502 to RWC 49.61.502, therefore it is irrelevant to the argument at hand.

This is what starts me on the path of questioning whether or not this is a simple mistake or a more nefarious action such as deceit when such an obvious falsification of the facts forth as a truthful representation of the facts.

The second part of Claim 2 is as follows:

Text of Washington Initiative 502 (PART V – Driving Under the Influence of Marijuana)

When you click the above link it takes you to the non-bookmarked PDF version of the I-502 initiative’s cover page that is page 1 of this document, you find PART V starts on PDF page 47 but the changes to RCW 46.60.502 do not start until PDF page 56.

At this point, you are probably thinking so what and you are right to think so; however, when one looks at the 23 links provided on this page by the author you find that the first three links are those that pertain to current laws with and proposed changes with the first two of these links taking the reader directly to web pages with the current state law as content whereas the reader is given no assistance in locating the specific text to verify what is stated in part one of Claim 2.  This makes it exceedingly difficult for the reader to check the facts, or lack thereof, and verify the truth of the statement:

(d) that the THC concentration of the driver’s blood is 5.00 or more; or the driver is under age 21 and the THC concentration of the driver’s blood is above 0.00

Combine this with the fact that the majority of the remaining 20 links (14 to be precise) are placed under various opinion categories (i.e. scientific, legal, etc.) that open directly to the information put forward as relevant to shedding light on the destructive potential of the proposed changes to RCW 46.61.502 by I-502 yet the actual language itself is buried and must be dug out with extra effort on the part of the reader.

I will not at this point say that these two factors are enough thus far too say with inductive certainty as to whether this is an honest mistake or a blatant lie on the authors part but the evidence is strong and mounting in favor of the later possibility at this juncture.  I cannot say this with certainty at this moment for there is still some slight room for the author to wiggle since the first part “that the THC concentration of the driver’s blood is 5.00 or more” is actually contained with the document (PDF page 48) but the later portion “or the driver is under age 21 and the THC concentration of the driver’s blood is above 0.00” is not contained with the document, this though leads us closer to the answer to our question.

That is why we must move on to the third portion of Claim 2 as we attempt to learn the facts and ascertain the truth. This section of text states the following:

What this change means: A 5 ng (nano-gram) / ml (milliliter) THC blood content limit (or 0 ng/ml if under 21) will be mandated that will find individuals instantly guilty of a DUID if they’re above the limit, regardless of impairment, with no ability to present a legal defense in court to prove otherwise (given it’s a per se limit with no rebuttable presumption included).

We can clearly see that while this statement is partially true, it will establish a per say limit of 5 ng/mL whole blood volume, although, on the whole this statement is inaccurate. The specific falsities are as follows:

  1. The changes to RCW 49.61.502 have nothing to do with individuals younger than 21, that is addressed by I-502 with changes to RCW 49.61.503 Driving under twenty-one consuming alcohol – Penalties.
  2.  I-502 changes RCW 49.61.502 to permit for an affirmative defense, while this will not benefit all cannabis consumers accused of DWI for cannabis it does provides the potential defendants with a legal defense to “prove otherwise” to the charges presented against them.

We can also clearly see that the afore mentioned false statement put forth with the statement “(d) that the THC concentration of the driver’s blood is 5.00 or more; or the driver is under age 21 and the THC concentration of the driver’s blood is above 0.00” has clearly become a part of the authors rational that they then use to formulate the statements made under the heading “What this change means”, clearly the flaws in their logic and arguments produced this fallacious line of thought.

Claim 3

Now to the final point that needs addressed and that is:

This page contains “REAL scientific evidence that contradicts the opposition’s stance on the per se DUI limit.”

This may be a minor point but when you get to this section of the page the evidence; or

“The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.”

Turns into “Scientific opinion”; or

“A view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.”

So, which is it that this page provides the reader?

Is it concrete empirical scientific evidence based off facts and or information that makes these statements true or is it a view formed about the subject that may or may not contain a basis in fact of knowledge?

Answer, these statements, taken out of context, are from research studies and reports about drug testing that show preliminary data at best and are not, in and of themselves, full-fledged double blind scientific research thereby making them opinions loosely based on fact or knowledge not “REAL scientific evidence that contradicts the opposition’s stance”.

Final Verdict

Now that I have presented to, you, the reader what I feel is all the evidence necessary to draw a conclusion I will now summarize my argument with the following statement.

My verdict is that this is a blatant lie constructed to obscure the facts of I-502 to hide the truth of what this bill will do when passed by presenting the reader with “important information,” in this case important misinformation, which unjustly maligns I-502 while unfairly and falsely bolstering the claims of those associated with No on I-502.

I now leave it up to you and your conscience to decide within the confines and thoughts of your mind as to how you will answer the question “Is No on I-502’s ‘Important Resources’ webpage an honest mistake or a blatant lie” for yourself; for it is you that needs to make that decision for yourself.

Advertisements

About TriXteR Phillips

Founder and Jack-of-all-Trades at Stand Up and Speak Out a volunteer organization devoted to providing the public with safe, legal, and supportive events on 4-20 to help bring public attention to the need to end cannabis prohibition for all humanity. Founder, Admin, Blogger, and Jack-of-all-Trades at TriXteR Phillips: A Poison Thorn in Prohibition's Side.
This entry was posted in Body Politic, My Opinions and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to Is No on I-502’s “Important Resources” webpage an honest mistake or a blatant lie?

  1. Pingback: The Forgotten Patients of Washington State and the Graphic Truth | TriXteR Phillips

  2. Pingback: I-502, marijuana is the new hemp, and the facts with a side order of opinion. | TriXteR Phillips

  3. BenJammin says:

    Jared is a blowhard whose income is directly from medical marijuana sales and is against I-502 because his income will drop substantially if everyone will be able to just go to the store….

    He is a traitor to all of us that worked so hard to get this on the ballot and once and for all legalize pot. He should be ashamed of his blind greed!

  4. Pingback: I-502, legalization, Class C felony amounts permitted, and the facts with a dash of opinion. | TriXteR Phillips

  5. Pingback: I-502, driving is a privilege not a right, and the facts with a dash of opinion. | TriXteR Phillips

  6. Pingback: I-502, Driving under the influence, and the facts with a dash of opinion. | TriXteR Phillips

  7. I think part of the science is that there is a lack of science. We should not create this law until we have an adequate number of reliable studies to which we can point as support for per se marijuana DUI.

    • Dear friend Jared, it appears as though your sole focus is about a minor premise I put forward and even admit that it could be nitpicking so I will ask you the same clarified question on Facebook here.

      Do you think that the points I raise that lead to the overriding question I ask in the article I wrote are due specifically to the author making an unintentional yet honest mistake when writing the material or do you think that the author intentionally wrote blatant lies into the piece?

    • Here is the FB converstaion I was engaged in with Jared Allaway, a cannabis consumer who is opposed to I-502 and speaks publically on behalf of No on I-502 about the points I raised in this article:

      Jared Allaway Thank you Trixter.
      Sunday at 7:42pm • Like.

      Trixter Phillips You are welcome Jared.
      I want to ask you what you opinion on this matter.
      Do you think this is an honest mistake or a blatant lie on the part of the author?
      Yesterday at 9:27am • Like.

      Jared Allaway I think when they say “we have real science” they mean to say “we can point out that New Approach Washington lacks science”
      Yesterday at 12:01pm • Like.

      Trixter Phillips
      Point taken, although I fear it leaves me wanting for an answer to the question I asked of you originally sir, this is more than likely due to my question not being specific enough. Therefore let me kindly put it to you again, all be it in a more specific wording.
      Do you think that the points I raise that lead to the overriding question I ask in the article I wrote are due specifically to the author making an unintentional yet honest mistake when writing the material or do you think that the author intentionally wrote blatant lies into the piece?
      Yesterday at 4:56pm • Unlike • 1.

      Jared Allaway I think we have a lot of well intentioned people doing the best they can with the training experience they have up to this point.
      17 hours ago • Like • 1.

      Trixter Phillips So then you in not so many words admit that there is a mistake so what should be done to correct this mistake?
      11 hours ago • Like.

      Jared Allaway Maybe we can manipulate some people into doing our bidding for us? I don’t know, I don’t like 502, I also am not officially connected to any official anti-502 groups.
      8 hours ago • Like.

      Trixter Phillips
      My answer to your question sir is emphatically, no. Manipulation, I believe, is what got us into this mess of prohibition in the first place with the lies, half-truths, and misinformation put forth at all levels of government and society by the likes of Harry J. Anslinger, William Randolph Hearst, and the DuPont family. Therefore, I am afraid, dear Jared, this course of action will not do for if history is any sort of teacher an important lesson we should learn is that the tactics of lies, half-truths, and misinformation are ultimately destructive to both the victim and victimizer, consequentially the should be avoided as we work to legalize cannabis.

      At this point it would be assuming to say that you agree with and already know this but I think it is a safe assumption on my part.

      I must confess that an assumption that I made in formulating my last question obscured and made more ambiguous my use of the word ‘should,’ the assumption was that you knew I knew the two facts you just mentioned, as well it was terribly open ended. Forgive me, it made it an unfair question and it appears that it lead you to thinking I was asking you ‘what are you personally going to do about this situation,’ which was not the intent of my question. The intent of my question to you is simply to find out what you feel that the author and or organization should do in light of the inaccuracies in data and rational on this page and to an extent what they should do with the remaining content on their site that references or uses these inaccuracies in data.

      Let me rephrase and provide you specific options.
      When someone’s words, spoke or written, are based off inaccurate data, and if this inaccuracy is brought to the attention of the author, and if the goal of the author is to inform people of the truth, which requires facts to make true the information, then the author is presented with multiple options what do you think is the correct choice for the author and or those in charge of the website?

      The available options, as I see them, are as follows:

      A) Do nothing, thereby allowing the inaccuracies to persist, which, as described above, will inevitably harm the movement of cannabis legalization; or

      B) Remove everything, thereby removing large portions of the web site, which, would unfairly disadvantage the No on I-502 organization for its author being guilty, as you state in not so many words, of merely committing an unintentional, honest mistake; or

      C) Change the inaccuracies in data to state the actual facts, re-write the portions of content that are derived from the faulty data, removing portions, if any, that cannot be factually corrected or re-written to make correct the data and truthful the statements in question, and review the remaining data and statements for factual accuracy to ensure the truth-value of the assertions made throughout the site are true and changing the data and statements that are void of fact and therefor untrue so that we do not commit the acts that history has taught us will harm our movement and ultimately the goal of full legalization; or

      D) Change the inaccuracies to different inaccuracies in data to state similar untrue statements, re-write the portions of content that are derived from the new faulty data, remove portions, if any, that cannot be corrected or re-written to make incorrect, still, the data, and, maintain, the untruthfulness of the statements in question, and review the remaining data and statements for consistency with the new falsified data and untruthful statements to ensure that no glaring discrepancies exist between old assertions and new assertions to obfuscate the truth and leave any of these found not in to be in conflict with the new falsified data and untrue statements throughout the website thereby committing the same acts that history has taught us will harm our movement and ultimately the goal of full legalization.

      I know this is a dreadfully long post and I am sure your obligations in life go well beyond the confines so if you wish a simple selection of the letter representing the option you feel most closely resembles the answer you would give, with or without follow up statements, is a choice I leave up to you sir.
      4 hours ago • Like.

      Jared Allaway I can understand would try to talk to me more than anyone else, probably because I actually respond sometimes. But I don’t have control. I don’t have nearly as much control over things as some people seem to think. I only control myself. There are a lot of people working with cannabis legalization in Washington state. Many of them do it for free. Everybody contributes in their own way.
      2 hours ago • Like.

      Trixter Phillips
      Well mister Allaway your first statement is a slight, I will ignore it. I never said or assumed you had control and I have asked reputedly for you to take control of yourself and offer your estimation of the situation since we are of course discussing what you feel is an important enough issue to make public statement such as this I found online and states that this took place Saturday, May 12, 2012:

      ‘Jared Allaway, another activist, said, “New Approach Washington is a piece of crap.” He added that the measure was simply “trying to give everyone a cannabis DUI even though they are not stoned.”’

      Therefore, if you make statements while in control of yourself in a public setting while speaking for an organization, No on I-502 then one must expect that others will seek discourse with them. If you do not desire that then you may wish to stop speaking publically on the matter.

      The author may well be one of those volunteers that contribute in their own way but that does not mitigate the fact that an error was made and I feel that it needs be addressed and I feel that it is appropriate to ask someone such as yourself that is mouthpiece for the organization whose actions are in question, namely No on I-502.

      If you are unable to control yourself long enough to give me a proper answer then I will waste my time no further.

      I bid you a good day to you dear Mr. Allaway.

      Commentary

      We are never going to legalize cannabis if people take this attitude towards eachother when raising serious issues that need attention.

      Here is the evedince that he is a representative, even if only in a volunteer capacity, of No on I-502:

      http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2012/05/12/pot-activists-rally-against-pot-initiative

      We must weed out the lies, prohibitionists lies and our own, in order to reverse the course of this nation not use tactics that are representative of the ONDCP, DEA, politicians, law enforcement and civilian proponents of prohibition in order to allow the garden on truth to flurish.

Share Your Observations

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s