Tweet
Possible marijuana initiative for Washington State ballot (photo: Joe Hall)
According to an AP report, Harriet Bullitt recently donated $100,000 to the campaign, and Peter Lewis, the Chairman of Progressive Insurance, is planning to donate a total of $250,000 to the campaign. Peter Lewis has been a long term supporter of marijuana policy reform and has helped fund several reform campaigns in the past.
The infusion of campaign money should help New Approach Washington achieve the daunting tasks of first gathering 241,153 valid signatures by the end of this year to get I-502 on the ballot and then running an outreach campaign to explain the measure to the general public. Current indications are that New Approach Washington will likely succeed in getting the signatures necessary, allowing the voters of the state to directly decide whether to legalize and regulate marijuana.
Washington State is demographically a very promising place for a marijuana legalization ballot initiative. The state is one of the most liberal in the country. It has a below average percentage of citizens over the age of 65, andWashington has traditionally had above average young adult turnout rates. These factors should help given that young voters tend to be very supportive of marijuana reform.
If the national trend toward growing support for marijuana legalization continues, there is a good chance that a year from now the people of Washington State, along with Colorado, could lead the nation in efforts to legalize and regulate marijuana.
18 Comments
My boss, Rick Steves (yes, THAT Rick Steves), has been donating a good deal of money and time to New Approach Washington. Hopefully with all the interest and advocacy we’re bringing together, we’ll get some forward momentum!
I <3 Rick Steves – must be fun to work for him.
If I remember properly, didn’t Washington State decriminalize growing and possessing small amounts before Ronny Raygun?
I would love to see pot regulated after seeing the devastating effects of pot on some teens (addiction like reactions), that tends to disappear when people get older.
Lets get it out of the hands of the kids like we do alcohol.
Outstanding. Hope the same thing happens for all the initiative efforts.
Just bought a Rick Steves moneybelt yesterday..
1. What does the initiative actually say? I’m not interested enough in this topic to search it out & read it for myself, but a 2-sentence summary would be helpful for people with a mild interest like me.
2. Why are these people supporting it financially? How will they benefit?
Well that all good but it just puts you on the fed/0 target list like it has in Calif. The people with big names or not should get ready for a irs audit or some other govt. wonderful protect the little people program. This just a progarm to to choke off the little grower until the corp. interest can get they’re shit together and posin us with something that has the saying better living through chemicals. They need an away to kill off us old people;)
Maybe they’re not as mercenary as some people. Or maybe they expect their City and State taxes decline when we can redirect the police to fighting crime instead of sneaking up on kids. And maybe we could reduce the over crowding of penitentiaries. Maybe they like a joint themselves, now and then.
Name names. Wh corps are the big players in the mj ind. Is it PhrMA that want to produce it, or PhRMA that wants no competition for its other painkillers. Or some other link I don’t know.
I’m not interested in maybes. I’d like to know more about the actual facts.
I did not ask how they benefited financially. I noted their financial contribution, but my Q wrt to benefits leaves open the issue of nonpecuniary motives, such as the ones you suggest.
Just askin’.
The funny thing is, I’m pretty sure Rick doesn’t even SMOKE the stuff; like me, he’s just very pro-legalization.
@eCAHNomics, AFAIK, Rick doesn’t net a dime from supporting the legalization. He’s very “don’t be evil” in his business practices and he supports a lot of causes like feed the world campaigns, Doctors Without Borders, and pro-legalization campaigns. I suspect he actually loses a fair number of potential sales to wealthy, mostly elderly, and often conservative European travelers who don’t agree with his vocal pro-legalization stance.
I’m just a software developer for him, but I have to say that when I was job-shopping after getting disgusted with my last “screw the customer, it’s all about the bottom line” employer, Rick’s activism really drew me in!
TLDR: not every business that supports a cause is in it purely for the money.
Thanks very much for the info.
The Bullits have a long local history supporting some progressive causes as philanthropists. I don’t know about Lewis but there are a lot of executive types who have been quietly and generously supporting cannabis reform efforts. Whether they qualify as progressives or libertarians, I applaud them on doing the right thing.
You ask good questions Nomics. I’m going to take a stab in the dark regarding question #2. Because they are philanthropists?
One major problem is that companies will still be able to fire people for using marijuana, even if they are doing it under the direction of a doctor for medical reasons. I’d like to see us focus on making it illegal to fire someone for using legal medical marijuana (at least legal at the state level) when the only impact it has on work is that someone fails a urine test. I can see still allowing companies to fire people for being intoxicated at work, but that would need to be documented separately from failing a drug test. Until we make this change medical marijuana is not available to those who need it but need to work. Let’s pass laws making a prescription mean something in the work place.
I think your talking about medical marijuana six pack which I originally thought was the camels nose in the tent but now realize is a giant scam. Decriminalization is the way to go and legalize and control is almost as good. But I am as opposed to medical as I am to prohibition.
I wonder if the Washington initiative is crafted mindful of possibly losing Fed funds if they don’t proactively cooperate with Feds. That might require the state still having to initiate reporting MJ activities to the Feds, even though such might not be a violation under state law.
Maybe it would be a “look the other way” situation in practise.
To bad the “monied” interests get to pick and choose the winners and the losers……….