Press "Enter" to skip to content

132 search results for “marijuana”

OR: AG Rosenblum

May 15, 2012

The weight of indicators seemed to be pointing toward a win for Attorney General in the Democratic primary - which may be determinative - for Ellen Rosenblum over Dwight Holton, and so it seems: She has 63.3% of the vote as this is written.

A lot of the discussion, as efforts ran to find distinctions between the candidates (who didn't seem to differ on a whole lot of things), centered on medical marijuana, of which Rosemblum seemed to be somewhat more supportive. The weasel words are intentional; the perception may or may not be close to reality. Maybe that issue accounts for some of the result, and surely the pro-pot contingent will take heart from the result.

Another factor may have played in as well, though, and one watcher suggested in the last few days. Holton is a close friend of outgoing AG John Kroger, who has had a string of problems and wound up dissatisfying a number of people in various arenas of law, from criminal to political-related investigations. And the matter of leaving office this summer, before his term is up, may be excusable but may not sit too well. Maybe some portion of the voters were also calling for a sharp break from the current administration.

OR: Primary dead ahead

May 13, 2012

Tuesday night, the last of the ballots are scooped up, and the results (most of them anyway) are announced. Except for very close races, the results will be known soon after the 8 p.m. deadline passes.

So what to watch for? Here's where our attention will be focused on Tuesday night.

1 - House 48 (D) - Mike Schaufler (inc), Jeff Reardon (ch). This must be the hottest legislative primary in Oregon this year, a fierce and intensively fought contest in, roughly, southeast Portland - in a district quite a bit different than the one the incumbent, Schaufler, is used to. About a dozen other Democratic House members have lined up for Schaufler's opponent, Reardon, in an unusual display of determination to oust him. The Oregonian notes that "The Oregon League of Conservation Voters is cranking out mailers attacking Schaufler's environmental votes as well as an incident involving Schaufler and a female lobbyist that led to the loss of his House co-chairmanship. One flier features him in league with Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh." But Schaufler, who has held a seat here since 2002, is not without friends of his own, or campaign skills. Our betting edges toward Reardon, but not by much: This ranks as the most interesting primary contests in Oregon this year.

2 - Portland mayor (np, open) - Eileen Brady, Charlie Hales, Jefferson Smith, 20 others. Writing about this a week ago, the uneasy prediction was that Hales will be the odd candidate out, and Brady and Smith proceed to November. We're not changing that view yet, but this is a fluid race, and any of the three could realistically wind up third.

3 - Jefferson County Measure 17.43. This is a public safety ballot issue, and also a proposal to raise property taxes in a county that hates property taxes - and where almost all other options to keep the most basic of county services funded have been exhausted. Win other lose, this ballot issue will have statewide resonance.

4 - Clackamas County chair (np) - Dave Hunt (ch), Charlotte LeHan (inc), John Ludlow (ch), Paul Savas (ch). What a contest this has been, and it speaks to the rapid growth in Oregon's third-largest county, its currently eruptive anti-tax Republican activism, and what has been a longer-term Democratic shift. The oddity is that it features an incumbent, Charlotte Lehan, who on her own seems not to have been especially controversial (though one blogger describes her "deaf ear for public sentiment," for which some evidence is available). But her opponents come from all over the board: Former Democratic House speaker Hunt, who has drawn support not only from Democratic quarters but also an Independent Party endorsement; Paul Savas, a commission member who has gotten a lot of the conservative support (though the Oregonian, in endorsing him,m described him as a centrist); and Wilsonville Mayor John Ludlow. Political hacks will be poring over these results for weeks.

5 - Attorney General (D, open) - Ellen Rosenblum, Dwight Holton. It's a statewide office, and has gotten some attention, but the main excitement seems to have been over which of them is more receptive to medical marijuana law (the thinking is Rosenblum, but the evidence is ambiguous). A moderately interesting race, but what will it teach us, other than (maybe) some reflection of attitudes about pot?

6 - Senate 27 (R) - Chris Telfer (inc), Tim Knopp (ch). It can't be said - or rather, it shouldn't be said, since it has been said - that Telfer is anything other than a loyal Senate caucus Republican, who only very occasionally breaks from the pack - no more than several others do. But the challenge from former legislator Knopp in the bigger picture has the look of a coalition of conservative forces (which does include two state representatives from the area) operating on loyalty politics - some of his backers describe Telfer as a Democrat. This is the premier party-loyalty battle in Oregon this year. (The guess here: Knopp wins.)

7 - Lane County Commission, seat 4 (np) - Rob Handy (inc), Pat Farr. Referencing back here to our April 29 piece on this contest between, in a race for a nonpartisan seat, a hot battle between a functional Democrat (that would be the incumbent, Handy) and a functional Republican (Farr).

8 - Portland city council seat 1 (np) - Amanda Fritz (inc). Mary Nolan (ch). You have an incumbent and a challenger, but even that is a little misleading here. Both Fritz and Nolan have views that you might expect of mainstream Portland city candidates, but their structural roles are a little different than you might expect. Fritz, closing out her first term, was the only candidate so far to win Portland city office using public financing, and in some ways seems to have been an outsider since. Nolan, on the other hand, woud be a new council member, but has been a veteran Idaho House member (since 2001), and has been majority leader there. It looks like a close race.

A lot more interesting as a contest than the race for seat 4, which is open. There, attorney Steve Novick - who would become overnight the most interesting member of the city council - is almost certain to win election, and probably will win outright on Tuesday; there are no other strong candidates in that race.

9 - House 36 (D, open) - Sharon Meieran, Jennifer Williamson. After Schaufler/Reardon, this race - to replace Mary Nolan, now running for the Portland council - has become one of the highest-profile of Portland-area legislative races, and its core debate subject is highly pertinent: health. Meieran, who has been a lawyer, has been more recently an emergency room physician. Williamson was and is an attorney, with some expertise in education, including for state entities (Department of Education, Portland State University) and appearing before the legislature: Lobbying. Williamson's campaign got proactive on the definitional front http://www.oregonlive.com/mapes/index.ssf/2012/04/is_it_a_smear_to_call_an_orego.html, saying in one mailer, "Insurance companies are ready to spend a fortune to smear Jennifer Williamson as a 'lobbyist.'" Meieran forces shot back, decrying the implication that she was an insurance-backed candidate. So we have a doctor (who used to be a lawyer) against a lawyer (who has lobbied), in a campaign that could be an interesting test of which definitions resonate better. The lessons may not be a lot broader than that: They're both running as left-of-center Democrats in a left-of-center Democratic district. (Meieran seems to have gotten the weight of the endorsements.)

10 - U.S. House 3 (R) - Ronald Green, Delia Lopez. There's a notable lack of suspense this year in the primaries for Oregon's congressional offices (and may be again in November). The temptation to include one was too great to resist, though, and this one - the race for the apparently worthless Republican nomination in District 3 (that would be the overwhelmingly Democratic district anchored by Portland, the seat held by Democrat Earl Blumenauer). One of the candidates, a first-timer, was Green, a TriMet bus driver; the other is Lopez, who has run for this seat (and been Republican-nominated) twice before - from the small rural community of Oakland, a couple of hours away from District 3.

Lopez is personable, but, well, she doesn't live even close to the district. Green has no great credentials for Congress, but he does live in the district, and he has a platform (mainly relating to higher tariffs) that relate to economic conditions and action Congress might take. Question: Are the few District 3 Republicans so dispirited that they vote by rote, and give Lopez the nomination again?

ID Bill of the Day: House Bill 370

January 17, 2012
Trail
Tom Trail

The Idaho medical marijuana bill has been introduced, by Representative Tom Trail, as he had said last year he would do. House Bill 370 does not have much chance of passage, or of clearing its first committee vote - if it gets one. (If it does, we'll be curious to see who else votes for it.)

Proposals along these lines, or further down them, have either become law in Washington and Oregon or have been strongly discussed for years. Outright state legalization (which still wouldn't mean federal legalization) is likely on the Washington ballot this year. But the subject has gotten no traction in Idaho.

How little traction? For some years, Trail has proposed (last year, along with Representative Brian Cronin, D-Boise) resolutions backing legalization of industrial hemp. Though biologically related to marijuana, it cannot be used to get high: Its uses are industrial, and many. It could be a major crop in Idaho, as Trail has noted. Many of the founding fathers, including George Washington, grew it. But last year it failed in the House Agriculture Committee.

Still, the rationale language in the new medical marijuana bill is strong: "Compassion dictates that a distinction be made between medical and nonmedical uses of marijuana. Hence, the purpose of this chapter is to protect from arrest, prosecution, property forfeiture, and criminal and other penalties those patients who use marijuana to alleviate suffering from debilitating medical conditions, as well as their physicians, primary caregivers and those who are authorized to produce marijuana for medical purposes."

We'll see how far compassion gets this bill.

Legislative prep sessions

January 8, 2012

Washington and Idaho legislative sessions crank in tomorrow, both probably a good deal different - in spite of having the same personnel generally in place - from a year ago. And both having something else in common: A special awareness of how their actions in this session may shape ballot issues in the fall, or earlier.

That's most notably true in Washington. For the last couple of years, budget action has mostly meant cuts in pay, services and so forth. Revenues at this point are still looking shakey, but a good many Democrats, including Governor Chris Gregoire, are saying that the cuts have to end. What may emerge, in effect, is two budget prospects, one with massive cuts, and the other balanced to some extent with revenue increases (such as Gregoire's proposed half-cent sales tax increase), which would then go to the voters. It could almost be a backflip on Tim Eyman legislating.

That may be only the first of a string of legislative matters heading to voters, stretching out into social territory (same-sex marriage, marijuana legalization).

In Idaho, there's a precedent already hanging over legislators' heads - a referendum on last session's public schools "Luna laws" (as they're now being dubbed). But there could be much more. Democrats are talking about a state ethics commission; at this point, it'd be good politics to run that out as an initiative if legislators won't pass it. The debate over health insurance exchanges promises to be about as lively. If cuts continue, it wouldn't be hard to imagine ways those too could be placed on ballots. And the kickoff for that could be obvious: For the second year, the budget committee (to its great credit) will be holding public hearings on the budget. (That never had been done in Idaho before last year.) Last year's hearings drew large crowds; so might this year's.

Welcome to the statehouses, guys. Should be interesting.

A legalization turning point?

September 18, 2011

Up to this point, the effort to end flat criminalization of marijuana - as opposed to the idea of legalizing, tax and regulating it possibly along the lines of alcohol - has gotten support from occasional politicians, of both parties at various times. But the breadth of support has been limited. It takes broad support to make a major change.

Which makes this of interest: The Washington Democratic Party has gone on record endorsing such a measure: Backing Initiative 502, to legalize, tax and regulate.

That action was taken by the Washington State Democratic Central Committee voted 75-43 on Saturday afternoon. Will be interesting to see what a number of Democratic officeholders in the state, most of whom have not gotten on board the idea, will have to say about it. But you do in any event get the sense that, politically, a corner is being turned.

Federal enforcement?

April 14, 2011

One key difference between the "nullification" bills some states (Idaho, for one) have been playing around with, and the marijuana proto-legalization efforts in some states, is this: The pot law proponents aren't making the argument that (much as they might like to) they're able to overturn federal law in the statehouses. They know they can't do that. They can only change state law.

But there is that question: What effect would an overturning of a state law on the subject have on federal enforcement? Signals have been mixed: Sometimes saying the feds will enforce federal anti-drug law, other times seeming to say that state law preferences will be respected.

Both chambers of the Washington Legislature have passed versions of Senate Bill 5073, which expands the legality (under state law) of medical use of marijuana and limits law enforcement action against possessors.

Which brings us to the letter Governor Chris Gregoire this week sent to U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder. The key paragraph:

"Within the next week lawmakers will be considering the differing versions of this legislation and determining what provisions of state law they will enact and forward to me, as Governor, for approval or disapproval. It would be very helpful to receive clear guidance on the Department of Justice enforcement position ... Also, it would be helpful if the guidance addressed whether state employees involved in inspecting the premises, auditing the records or collecting fees from the licensed dispensers, producers or processors would be immune from arrest or liability when engaged in the enforcement of this licensing law."

Something says we're approaching a turning point here. The response, whatever it is, should be highly illuminating - and provocative.

Chattin’ with the Czar

March 5, 2011

The Seattle Times blog post yesterday on their hour-long discussion with Gil Kerlikowske, informally called the "Drug Czar," is well worth reading as an indicator of attitudes and shifts in attitudes.

The Times, you'll recall, broke sound ground among larger regional newspapers on February 20 by editorializing in favor of legalizing marijuana. That was apparently enough to prompt Kerlikowske to ask for a sit-down with the editorial board. If he had any thought of changing the paper's direction, though, it seems to have fallen flat: "As it turned out, he was cordial and almost laid-back. At one point he steered the conversation to prescription drug abuse, which had nothing to do with our editorial. When we asked him about legal marijuana he did disagree with us, but so gently that some of the attendees wondered why he had come at all."

He did offer, the post says, a couple of arguments in favor of the criminal ban, but they were so weak as to be easily swiped away, and were by the blogger. (The reference is toward the bottom of the post.)

More telling, maybe, was this description of the Obama Administration's stance: "The Obama administration’s “middle position” on drugs that leans toward treatment but requires penalties also, he said, because about half the users who go into treatment “have to be encouraged.”"

This sounds a little like the kind of thing the Clinton Administration tried do, concerning gays in the military, back in 1993 with Don't Ask Don't Tell: A policy that is all-but-openly just an interim step. It has that kind of sense to it.

Seattle Times: Legalize it

February 18, 2011

Is this the first Northwest metro paper to explicitly, no question about it, call for legalizing marijuana? Believe so.

Says the Seattle Times today:

"MARIJUANA should be legalized, regulated and taxed. The push to repeal federal prohibition should come from the states, and it should begin with the state of Washington."

It is clearly-stated and well-reasoned, not with arguments especially new but which have become increasingly undeniable. Such as this point:

"There is a deep urge among parents to say: "No. Don't allow it. We don't want it." We understand the feeling. We have felt it ourselves. Certainly the life of a parent would be easier if everyone had no choice but to be straight and sober all the time. But an intoxicant-free world is not the one we have, nor is it the one most adults want. Marijuana is available now. If your child doesn't smoke it, maybe it is because your parenting works. But prohibition has not worked."

Forgiveness, not permission

January 30, 2011

The old saying goes: It's easier to get forgiveness than permission. Are the Washington pot dispensers buying in?

The large numbers of marijuana dispensers in California (and to a lesser degree Colorado) got the law on their side before setting up. The situation in Washington state is, more than in Oregon, ambiguous: Are they legally allowed, or not? The law has a gray area here.

The Seattle Times today: "In the past seven months, dispensaries have sprouted across the state, exploiting a loophole in the state medical-marijuana law that neither explicitly allows nor prohibits them. State tax officials estimate at least 120 are open, mostly in the Puget Sound area. Dozens more likely remain underground. The options are dizzying. Pot in many connoisseur strains or cannabis-infused food, from lollipops to pasta primavera? Home delivery or strip-mall storefronts aspiring for a pharmacy look?"

There's some speculation now that this could jump-start the legalize-regulate-tax regime that has so far hit a brick wall in Washington. Or at least rev up the impatient engines.

Legislature is already out there. (A quick search of Washington legislation on the subject brings up six:

5073 Relating to medical use of cannabis
1100 Relating to medical use of cannabis
1550 Relating to regulating the production, distribution, and sale of cannabis
5598 Relating to regulating the production, distribution, and sale of cannabis
1285 Relating to regulating synthetic cannabinoids
5101 Relating to placing certain synthetic cannabinoids into schedule I of the uniform controlled substances act

Expect that now, it will get a more serious listen.

Can't find what you're looking for? Try refining your search: