Listen to Ross and Burbank weekdays on KIRO Radio 97.3 FM
 Ross+Burbank


marijuana2.jpg
Seattle City Attorney Pete Holmes says he doesn't expect the DEA to run roughshod over the will of Washington voters who approved legalized marijuana. (AP image)

Marijuana Q&A with Seattle City Attorney Pete Holmes

BY Josh Kerns  on November 8, 2012 @ 11:56 am (Updated: 12:32 pm - 11/8/12 )

With so many questions about what happens now that marijuana will soon be legal in Washington state, the Ross and Burbank Show turned to Seattle City Attorney Pete Holmes for a Q&A about where to get it. Dave and Luke wanted to know what the cops will do now and if we're heading for a showdown with the feds.

Dave: So where can you get it? Medical marijuana users can form collectives to grow it. Can we now create recreational collectives?

Holmes: No. That will not happen until there's a one year rule making period. The Liquor Control Board issues regulations and licenses are developed for both growers and processors, as well as the retailers.

Dave: Does this mean we can go to existing medical marijuana places and buy pot recreationally without a prescription?

Holmes: No. If they're complying with the law, they can only provide marijuana to authorized medical patients.

Dave: So you're telling me that on Dec. 6, when it becomes legal to smoke pot, there will be no legal way for a recreational pot smoker to get it?

Holmes: Not legally. And again, that's the problem with medical marijuana now. For instance, even with an authorized provider under state law, they're still illegal under federal law.

Dave: So you're saying under state law it wouldn't be legal to get recreational marijuana because there's no legal way to recreationally grow it?

Holmes: That's correct. So what it's aimed at are those 10,000 arrests annually across the state that are for simple possession. Not for distribution, but for simply having up to an ounce in your possession.

Luke: The City of Seattle has already made marijuana the lowest level of police priority. Can you make it lower than the lowest priority?

Holmes: Well, there was debate until I took office whether or not it was the lowest priority. When I stopped prosecuting them altogether you can't get any lower than that. Arrests were still occurring, but there were no prosecutions. So as a practical matter, what I-502 is doing is to extend the same protection in Seattle across the state of Washington and more importantly, providing arrest protection. Now it's not appropriate to be arrested for simple possession up to an ounce.

Luke: So essentially, after Dec. 6 if I'm sitting on my front porch or I'm inside my house and I'm smoking marijuana or consuming marijuana in some fashion and it's less than an ounce, the police will, under no circumstance you can see, will arrest me for that?

Holmes: That's right. It's no longer a state crime.

Dave: But they will assume you got it legally because they're not arresting you?

Holmes: It's not relevant to them. If they see a transfer, that's distribution and that remains a felony.

Dave: Suppose Luke is on his porch smoking it and he hands it to Nick, our assistant producer, who didn't have his own. Then what happens?

Holmes: Well, I'm not sure what the visibility of that to the public is, but under I-502, remember it's not simply legalization. There are also some regulations that go into effect on Dec. 6 that includes the DUI per se standard as well as the prohibition against public display, public consumption. This is not to allow smoking in parks or in the streets or in public view.

Dave: They can't arrest for possession, but Luke just handed it over to another guy.

Holmes: That is technically distribution.

Luke: But I get the sense that it would be very unlikely that in that scenario, police would treat that as if it were distribution.

Holmes: It's hard for me to imagine that police would devote resources to that kind of enforcement action.

Luke: How about using marijuana's presence as some sort of indication that other illegal things are going on? It would not be allowable for police to use the presence of marijuana as a reason to investigate something further, correct?

Holmes: This of course hasn't been litigated, but I believe at that point there's not probable cause because the possession is not a crime under Washington state law. Now, it would be different if there's a federal DEA agent, of course, but not for state law enforcement.

Luke: What do you think the DEA is going to do about this? Do you expect to see them roaming Washington state, overruling you and other local officials?

Holmes: Overruling the will of the voters? I don't think that will happen. We do have a one year real making period before any state licensed marijuana is produced and available for sale. So I fully expect during that time, law enforcement at all levels will be engaged in conversations about how this I-502, this economic weapon, now that we have to control, illegal marijuana is going to complement other law enforcement efforts. We want to keep this out of the hands of minors and we want to make sure there's no impaired driving and yet, we want to stop criminalizing adult conduct. So that's what I-502 is all about.

Josh Kerns, MyNorthwest.com Reporter
Josh Kerns is co-host of KIRO Radio's Seattle Sounds (Saturday nights 7-8) and a digital content producer for MyNorthwest.com.
More Ross and Burbank

MyNorthwest.com - Purpose of Comments statement
Bonneville Media encourages site users to express their opinions by posting comments. Our goal is to maintain a civil dialogue in which readers feel comfortable. At times, the comments can descend to personal attacks. Please do not engage in such behavior. We encourage your thoughtful comments which: have a positive and constructive tone, are on topic, are respectful toward others and their opinions. Bonneville reserves the right to remove comments which do not conform to these criteria.

Comments (21)


  • Add A Comment

  • Saltchucker wrote...
    Bad law, good idea.
    November 8, 2012 11:49 am
    I really don't see how the supporters of this law can claim it will stop the black market. We have a least a year of possesion of an ounce or less legal, but no way or where to BUY it legally. Will this not create a massive boom time for the black market?
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Javender wrote...
    Patience?
    November 10, 2012 7:36 am
    I think you misread it. They were talking about "existing medical marijuana places" and the moment it becomes legal this year, that is December 6th. Next year, recreational use becomes legal at the state level and you'll be able to buy it without a medical marijuana card. At least that's how I understand it.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Javender wrote...
    Disregard that
    November 10, 2012 8:11 am
    ...Forget I said that. That was incorrect and you're right. Hopefully though, this will in time lead to laws that will not make the black market useful for obtaining marijuana... Then again at the very least, with it being easier to not get in trouble for, perhaps there will be more choice in where you get it...? But yeah you're pretty much right.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • reluminate wrote...
    Black market will flourish
    December 6, 2012 9:35 am
    It would be nice if the law was written by someone who has ever smoked pot, bought pot or grown pot. Have you read the law? The Market for medical marijuana has a basic pricing structure. Aprox. 10$ a gram. Now later today I will drop off a quarter lb. at a dispensary and they are going to sell it to the public. According to the law: they have inserted a middle man into the mix, just to make more revenue for the state. A grower has to sell it to a processer, who I guess puts it in a bag and slaps a label on it and then sells it to the retail location. The news guy keeps reporting that there will be a 25% sales tax. I wish he would read the law before he reported on the subject. The law says that there is a 25% tax for the transaction between the grower and the processer. A 25% tax for the transaction from the processer to the retailer. A 25% tax from the retailer to the consumer. Does that mean the 10$ gram will be 17$? It still costs what it costs to grow it. Each of the layers of the business still have expenses like rent, power, insurance, etc. I don't know about you but I'm not paying 17$ a gram. The retailers as they are now are a great convenient way to purchase marijuana but I've been stopping by my buddies house to pick up a Baggie for years Now let me say I am all for the state taxing it. But do they need to make all the money at one time or ease into it and make it a profitable avenue. It's like tolling 520. They don't make the fee 1$ so that nobody changes thier driving patterns but charge upwards of 3.50$ and now it's clear sailing across the bridge. They should sell a license to buy at a retailer. It could cost you 150$ to 200$ a year, just like the medical authorization costs, and the state could put that in the bank every year and then tax the sales of it some normal rate. Even if it is a high rate, there is no reason to be pigs.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • vern ivan wrote...
    Marijauna
    November 8, 2012 12:45 pm
    How many politicians does it take to change a light bulb? None. Darkness is OK. Caves are dark, life is not.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • cdbtx wrote...
    So
    November 8, 2012 1:35 pm
    If next year I'm renting a retail space from the State and selling pot.. and the DEA comes in and busts me... will they confiscate all my property too.... and can I sue Washington State?
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Cash wrote...
    Hey Holmes
    November 8, 2012 4:39 pm
    Learn the law before you talk about it on the radio... Sharing a joint is simply sharing a joint you dope. A "Transaction" where money is traded for dope is considered "Possession with Intent to Deliver" that is what is meant by distrubution... Luke can share his ounce with anyone he wishes as long as they are of the legal age according to the new law. Sheesh...
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Troll Hunter wrote...
    Cash
    December 5, 2012 2:39 pm
    Technically you are incorrect. Yes, a TRANSACTION is where you exchange exchange something of value for something else of value. DISTRIBUTION is where you hand out something without the expectation of getting something in value in return. This is a significant difference as you should know in your line of work. Drug dealers have tried to utilize that distinction by having their 'customers' distribute their money to one person then go to another to get their drugs. Is this legal in the eyes of the law; have those criminals found a loophole in the system?

    How this relates to the sharing scenario talked about here really is up in the air and will probably be decided in the courts. Good police will recognize the difference between sharing and distributing, but what about the bad ones with a bias against marijuana or certain people?

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • darrengrama wrote...
    Are you serious?
    December 5, 2012 6:01 pm
    You're gonna question Seattle's state attorney on this matter? A guy who supports the law and is trying to do everything he can so YOU do not get in trouble for pot possession. You're gonna call him a dope? You're biting the hand that feeds you. Sheesh lol.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • darrengrama wrote...
    Are you serious?
    December 5, 2012 6:04 pm
    You're gonna question Seattle's state attorney on this matter, a guy who supports the law and is trying to do everything he can so YOU do not get into trouble for pot possession. You're gonna call him a dope? You're biting the hand that feeds you. Sheesh lol.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • rational wrote...
    rather ironic!
    November 8, 2012 5:31 pm
    So now WA state has legalized pot...but it's still illegal because of a federal law. The irony is the left now decrying big federal government interference in their lives and want to call upon states rights to allow the state law to trump the national one. Obviously you agree with the conservatives when it's your ox that is gored...hypocrites.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Ruiner wrote...
    Better than nothing
    November 8, 2012 7:23 pm
    I never quite understood why legalizing pot was a "liberal" or "democrat" thing and I've known several people who leaned democrat because of the belief that democrats would legalize it. It really should be a conservative issue because its loosening government control, allowing people to make their own decisions and there is a vast economic benefit. Not to mention freeing up jail/prison space and eventually giving farmers something new to grow instead of being paid not to grow certain things. Also, the foreign policy aspect in that if it were nationwide, American business would rapidly put the cartels in Mexico out of business. All this while being overseen by sensible laws and generating enormous tax revenue.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • rational wrote...
    Ruiner
    November 8, 2012 8:17 pm
    You make a good point in general...and if one pays close attention, there is a good number of conservatives who were generally in favor of legalization for the exact reason you mention.

    You also bring up something that made me wonder about the lack of morality of the left...and that is, they were so focused on getting their drugs that they didn't care of the cost in lives outside of the US boarders. Hard to get past the racism of the left in not valuing the lives of Mexicans, for example simply because one wanted to get one's joint.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Newton wrote...
    This country was based off of common law. Law of the Land
    November 8, 2012 9:53 pm
    This lawyer has stolen this country with double talk. Laws are for people that don't know the real laws that we live under, a free country and are rights are given under common law "god given" rights. Federal Laws are null and void if they do not follow are constitutional Laws. Executive orders are attemps to bypass are constitutional rights and are agian null and void.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Troll Hunter wrote...
    Newton
    December 5, 2012 9:03 pm
    Too true about the unconstitutionality of executive orders, and it is quite scary when we realize these illegal orders are being used to strip away our constitutional rights our forefathers fought and died for. sadly, there doesn't seem to be much we the people can do about the politicians and lawyers stealing our power. We no longer live in a democratic republic, we live in a two party dictatorship today. We have been sold into financial slavery to the privately owned Federal reserve by these scum, and kept in line through lies and fear.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • It's me! Ha ha! wrote...
    After the "SMOKE" has cleared,
    November 9, 2012 5:53 am
    sounds like not that much has changed. Hempheads will still be looking over their shoulders while toking. Chronic use is still just as bad for you as it was last week. Price of "Legal" pot will be sky high.

    As for minors in possession? Right!

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • It's me! Ha ha! wrote...
    Yep!
    November 9, 2012 8:09 am
    This must be the "GREEN" that the Dear Leader put our stolen tax dollars into!
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Ernie in the East wrote...
    More bad drivers on the road, legally
    November 9, 2012 10:32 am
    As if it's not bad enough with drunk drivers on the road, now we are going to have to deal with potheads. Your rights end where my life begins. You may have the "right" to imbibe or toke but you don't have the right to infringe on the rights of others to life. In 2009 206 deaths occurred as a result of DUI in the state of Washington. What about the rights of those who died because a drunk got behind the wheel of an automobile? Far too many selfish, self-centered children walking about in adult bodies.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • PHR wrote...
    Actually Ernie
    December 5, 2012 3:49 pm
    You have been dealing with the "potheads" on the road for a long time. I think the demon you need to focus on is booze. I doubt that even one of those 206 deaths were caused by a "pothead". They were all at home eating ice cream and watching DVD's while the drunks were out there doing their thing. You need to work towards a reinstatement the 18th Amendment if you are really serious about making a difference. Also keep in mind your statement that "Your rights end where my life begins goes both ways.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • The Real Moe wrote...
    Moot Points...
    January 9, 2013 3:12 am
    It seems some posters aren't thinking a few things through. One is the simantics of sharing pot with a friend and it technicly being distrobution. That's a moot point if you follow I-502 (no smoking in a public place or in the view of the public. Also mentioned was the effect of black market sales. Well that is not the focus of this new law at all. It's about saving money and making new money. Also someone mentioned pot crossing the border. We don't smoke crappy mexican weed up here. We smoke what people grow up here in the northwest. Grown indoors, and good pot. Not mexican crap weed. Someone mentioned if they setup a warehouse and sold pot to people with no med marijuana card and the feds could come and bust you. Well yes, and so could the WA state police, because that would be illegal distribution. Unless you have a green card then you will only be able to legally buy from the state. They are already talking to tobacco companies, and WA. will tax the crap out iof it like alcohol and tobacco. As far as people driving high. Stop, breathe, and think. The law has not changed at all regarding that. It was a DUI and still is. The new law won't change peoples minds about driving stoned. Why...because it's exactly the same circumstances before I-502. And I agree that drunk drivers are the real concern. Lastly, I think it's logical to assume the feds are interested in distributors, not recreational users operating under their state law. So Dec 2013 the biggest factor will decide if people buy legally, or keep doing what they have been doing. That factor is price. If the state is selling pot for more than what one can get on the street, then you would be an idiot if you bought WA state legal pot. Of course there's is availability, convenience, and selection as well to comsider. Honestly I don't believe this will be favorable to the pot smokers until people can legally grow. Then however you get into the lagistics. Personally I don't want to grow, I just want to smoke. No metter what there will be abuse of the law on both ends. Some cops will abuse power. And If smelling pot is no longer just cause for a search then how would the officer know if you have more than an ounce? This really isn't the law the pot smokers want. Just hope it's a good first step towards pot actually being truly legal. Moe out...puff puff pass.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • The Real Moe wrote...
    yikes...
    January 9, 2013 3:14 am
    Please excuse the numerous typos. I'm up real late. I do hope however that my prospective makes a few people think.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }