This article focuses on the truth as a tool for No on I-502 and those associated with it who wish to use it to strengthen their misinformation, half-truths, and lies put forth by the proponents of No on I-502 as basis for their opposition, which you will clearly see in the following text.
1. fully and clearly expressed or demonstrated; leaving nothing merely implied; unequivocal: explicit instructions; an explicit act of violence; explicit language.
2. clearly developed or formulated: explicit knowledge; explicit belief.
3. definite and unreserved in expression; outspoken: He was quite explicit as to what he expected us to do for him.
Mumbo-Jumbo that No on I-502 calls FAQ’s
The only statement made about hemp on the publically viewable webpages of their website is the “FAQ” webpage, which goes as follows:
“In addition, hemp would still not be explicitly legal”
Now, while this assertion is true that I-502 does not say the commonplace term for varieties of Cannabis sativa L. with low levels of THC – it does however include varieties of cannabis with THC levels that fall within the guidelines of percentages of THC content within the established varieties of cannabis plants that are recognized as hemp – it nevertheless misleads the reader into thinking that this is automatically a bad thing when you look at the sentence with the entire paragraph of mumbo jumbo that is the misinformation, half-truths and lies, of No on I-502, which goes as follows (the assertion about hemp being in bold):
“I-502 is not legalization. It simply creates a legal exception for possession of an ounce [I-502 permits felony amounts of marijuana; Updated: 5/23/2012] and a few other minor cannabis related crimes. Under this initiative it would still be illegal for individuals to grow any amount. In addition, hemp would still not be explicitly legal, passing a joint would still be felony distribution, and a new form of prohibition will be introduced that will cause cannabis consumers to be wrongfully convicted and imprisoned (the per se DUID mandate). People under 21 have the potential to be convicted of a DUID, even if patients, for consuming cannabis weeks ago. Beyond this, the entire distribution system will be federally preempted (rendered invalid in court) due to the fact that it creates a positive conflict with our federal Controlled Substances Act (you can’t force a state to accept taxes from a federally illegal substance). Even if not preempted, the regulation system is absurd, going as far as allowing the Liquor Control Board to decide the amount of THC in the cannabis sold, as well as the number of cannabis retail outlets per county.”
[NOTE: The link to the “per se DUID mandate” takes the reader to what No on I-502 calls an “Important Resources” webpage. You can read the article where I debunk this page here: Is No on I-502’s “Important Resources” webpage an honest mistake or blatant lie?]
This makes the proponents of I-502 appear as though they are trying to pull the wool over the people’s eyes, if you read what they say and take it as the whole truth. Moving on to what is the actual truth.
Revised Code of Washington, Washington Administrative Code
Revised Code of Washington
Upon searching the Washington State Legislatures website, which contains all of Washington criminal statutes and all other state statutes and no mention of the word hemp exists within the Revised Code of Washington, which is:
The Revised Code of Washington (RCW) is the compilation of all permanent laws now in force. It is a collection of Session Laws (enacted by the Legislature, and signed by the Governor, or enacted via the initiative process), arranged by topic, with amendments added and repealed laws removed. It does not include temporary laws such as appropriations acts. The official version of the RCW is published by the Statute Law Committee and the Code Reviser.
Washington Administrative Code
However, hemp appears in portions of Washington’s Administrative Code as it pertains to rope and other administrative statutes, which is:
Regulations of executive branch agencies are issued by authority of statutes. Like legislation and the Constitution, regulations are a source of primary law in Washington State. The WAC codifies the regulations and arranges them by subject or agency. The online version of the WAC is updated twice a month. Copies of the WAC as they existed each year since 2004 are available in the WAC archive.
While the search of the site did provide links to RCW’s on the first page provided but another search for hemp on these pages I found they make no mention of hemp within the two following pages:
The remaining results were that of WAC’s, which mention hemp in as it pertains to rope, bills, or blog articles. The page also shows +10 pages of search results but only the first 4 pages contain different links; the remaining pages are duplicates of page 4.
You can search the Washington’s State laws by following the link bellow:
I-502 as it pertains to hemp
No mention of hemp exists in I-502 as well it should not contain any mention of hemp as this bill deals with criminal statutes and not the creation of agricultural hemp for that could hamper efforts of individuals who wish to establish hemp as an agricultural crop in the future. Therefore, there is no reason for I-502 to mention hemp explicitly thereby adding the term to Washington’s Uniform Controlled Substances Act and that makes this is a non-issue. The full list of the Sections of Washington’s Revised Code that I-502 addresses is as follows:
AN ACT Relating to marijuana; amending RCW 69.50.101, 69.50.401, 69.50.4013, 69.50.412, 69.50.4121, 69.50.500, 46.20.308, 46.61.502, 46.61.504, 46.61.50571, and 46.61.506; reenacting and amending RCW 69.50.505, 46.20.3101, and 46.61.503; adding a new section to chapter 46.04 RCW; adding new sections to chapter 69.50 RCW; creating new sections; and prescribing penalties.
I-502 PART II: DEFINITIONS
Now we will examine the cleaver means by which I-502 legalizes hemp, which is a simple change in the definition of marijuana, or marihuana, that currently exists by first looking at the current law and then we will look at the language of the initiative to see how I-502 proposes to change this definition within RCW 69.50.101 that will allow for hemp production.
Chapter 69.50 RCW Uniform controlled substances act
(q) “Marijuana” or “marihuana” means all parts of the plant Cannabis, whether growing or not; the seeds thereof; the resin extracted from any part of the plant; and every compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of the plant, its seeds or resin. The term does not include the mature stalks of the plant, fiber produced from the stalks, oil or cake made from the seeds of the plant, any other compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of the mature stalks (except the resin extracted therefrom), fiber, oil, or cake, or the sterilized seed of the plant which is incapable of germination.
(((q))) (s) “Marijuana” or “marihuana” means all parts of the plant Cannabis, whether growing or not, with a THC concentration greater than 0.3 percent on a dry weight basis; the seeds thereof; the resin extracted from any part of the plant; and every compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of the plant, its seeds or resin. The term does not include the mature stalks of the plant, fiber produced from the stalks, oil or cake made from the seeds of the plant, any other compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of the mature stalks (except the resin extracted therefrom), fiber, oil, or cake, or the sterilized seed of the plant which is incapable of germination.
As you can see current laws do not outlaw the parts of the plant that are typically considered hemp for agricultural and industrial purposes but if you grow the plant for that part you are violating the law as the plant will only be able to grow with the portions of it that are currently illegal regardless of the THC content of the plants growing. With the passage of I-502, persons who seek and then granted licensing by the state to produce marijuana can grow whatever types they wish, regardless of the THC content, and can call the marijuana hemp if they wish. So in effect what we call hemp is legal within the guidelines put forth by I-502 even though it the initiative does not explicitly use the word hemp but marijuana in its place.
Stating a truth simply to argue semantics is another tool of the drug warriors, politicians, and prohibitionists that has, does, and will impede the progress of those seeking an end to cannabis prohibition and seek to free humanity from such draconian laws. I leave you now with what I feel is an apt quote from William Shakespeare’s play Romeo and Juliet.
“’Tis but thy name that is my enemy;
Thou art thyself, though not a Montague.
What’s Montague? it is nor hand, nor foot,
Nor arm, nor face, nor any other part
Belonging to a man. O, be some other name!
What’s in a name? that which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet;
So Romeo would, were he not Romeo call’d,
Retain that dear perfection which he owes
Without that title. Romeo, doff thy name,
And for that name which is no part of thee
Take all myself.”
- I-502, Driving under the influence, and the facts with a dash of opinion. (trixterphillips.wordpress.com)
- I-502, legalization, Class C felony amounts permitted, and the facts with a dash of opinion. (trixterphillips.wordpress.com)
- I-502, driving is a privilege not a right, and the facts with a dash of opinion. (trixterphillips.wordpress.com)
- Pot Activists Rally Against Pot Initiative (slog.thestranger.com)