I-502, marijuana is the new hemp, and the facts with a side order of opinion.

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.


ex·plic·it [ik-splis-it]


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?]

I-502 Bookmarked [press Ctrl + f to open search, type hemp into search and click enter]

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.

Search Results:

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:

Chapter 69.51 RCW Medical cannabis (formerly medical marijuana)

RCW 69.51A.010 Definitions.

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:

Washington State Legislature “Legislative Search” webpage [Type hemp into the search box]

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 Bookmarked [Full list of statutes on PDF Page 3; press Ctrl + f to open search, type hemp into search and click enter]


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

RCW 69.50.101


(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.

RCW 69.50.101 Definitions

I-502: Definitions

(((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.

I-502 Bookmarked [PDF Page 7]

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.

My opinion

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.”


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, I-502, My Opinions and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to I-502, marijuana is the new hemp, and the facts with a side order of opinion.

  1. Pingback: Anti-Legalization Lawyers Get More Desperate with Only Three Weeks Left Before the Election. | TriXteR Phillips

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

  3. mmo says:

    I view something really interesting about your weblog so I saved to favorites .

  4. dragon nest hack says:

    Its like you read my mind! You appear to know a lot about this, like you wrote the book in it or something.

    I think that you could do with a few pics to drive the message home a little bit,
    but other than that, this is wonderful blog. A great
    read. I’ll definitely be back.

  5. cherrygirl28 says:

    They have tried for too long to use force to stop the proliferation of cannabis use. In recent years they have found success using the tax system, obscure codes and other overlooked tools to bring down collectives, growers and others. The agencies are addicted to the money prohibition brings to their budgets. We can not simply glance over and accept the first piece of legislation to address the cannabis issue. It must be done carefully and without loopholes that will hurt people further. Putting patients or anyone at risk even if they did not smoke that day is outrageous. Treating the regulation similar to the way WA already treats liquor in my opinion would be better. The driving under the influence testing has always been a major stumbling block and hopefully one day will be conclusively solved. Thank you for going through this thoroughly!

    • Thank you CherryGirl,

      As you say, the system is stacked against the legalization of the cannabis plant and the consumers who utilize the plant. This system is terribly complex and difficult, which makes it difficult to write legislation that will right all the wrongs. This means that by default most voter written legislation will not be perfect unless one is able to re-write the entirety of the statutes that not only make cannabis illegal but all Schedule I drugs illegal. That however does not make I-502 worthless and destructive to medical patients as the cannabis consumers who oppose I-502 would have you believe. In fact, the more I look at the language of I-502 the more I realize the authors of I-502 wrote the best legislation they could when you take into account the complexity of Washington’s state laws that make the cannabis plant and the recreation use thereof illicit.

      Another point I would like to address is that those cannabis consumers most opposed to I-502 are those that have failed to make it to this point in the initiative process with their “true legalization” attempts. I believe this is because they do not care that the rest of the citizens of Washington State would not be comfortable with when being asked to sing petitions for and then later to vote on the passing of an unrestricted and unregulated market considering how little the majority of cannabis consumers and non-consumers of cannabis actually know about the safety and utility of the cannabis plant. Their concept of “true legalization” is nothing more than sophistry at its worst and is counterproductive and destructive to the movement that seeks to legalize cannabis.
      While I-502 does not close all the loopholes in the Revised Code of Washington as it pertains to Chapter 69.50 and Title 46, it does however provide more protections than the current laws provide for all cannabis consumers. This is a step in the right direction but not good enough for the cannabis consuming opposition. In addition, if the initiative is not up to these folk’s standards then speak the truth about I-502; do not use the same tactics of those who implemented cannabis prohibition or those who maintain cannabis prohibition. If the bill as it is written does not offer what they feel is enough then say it does not offer enough protection is all I am asking of these folks who consume cannabis but oppose I-502.

      Granted the 5ng/mL whole blood active THC threshold will not protect the most constant of consumers but it does offer some protection to some people who did not have any before by the letter of the law. The reason why they went with that limit was that the data thus far shows an increase above x1 starts at 5ng/mL of whole blood active THC content. The study and the graphic that shows this I provided below.

      When we have a state that has legalized cannabis for recreation use we can then begin to earnestly studying the effects of cannabis to get concrete evidence that shows what levels of THC or other guiding factors could determine impairment. Until then voters only have what they know about alcohols effect on drivers to compare with which means you need to mimic the DUI laws pertaining to alcohol until such data is available.

      I suppose long story short I agree with you, lol, but I suppose I am still fixated on this issue. That is probably because the next article I am working on deals with I-502 as well. This one will be a bit tougher, especially when you try to talk to a King County prosecutor about current laws and they tell you “I don’t feel comfortable discussing this with you because I don’t know you or where you are from.” I doubt that matters to them when they prosecute and persecute cannabis consumers, to tell the truth it was a cowardly way to deal with the situation on her part and I feel sorry for those whose lives she has ruined.

      Again, thank you for your kind words, thank you for commenting on this issue, and thank you for doing the good work of cannabis legalization.

  6. Pingback: Marijuana – Its History – First in a Series | Veterans Today « CITIZEN.BLOGGER.1984+ GUNNY.G BLOG.EMAIL

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 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s