Our Sponsors:

Read more »

Trending Stories

Our Members

Many thanks to Charnley Marsden and Frederick Moody some of our many supporters.


Most Commented


    Legalized pot: The challenge is to do it right

    Guest opinion: We've been there, done that with repealing prohibition. Have we learned enough to smartly regulate marijuana?

    The voters have spoken. They made a decision on Initiative 502, making it clear that the majority of the state’s voters believe it is time to adopt a new, more responsible approach to marijuana.

    The state now has the answer to one question: How voters feel about legalization of the substance. But the bigger riddle now is: What are the next steps?

    There are echoes of this issue —  and lessons to be learned —  from Washington's history. One needs only review our state’s movement to ban alcohol and then later —  predating national repeal —  to end Prohibition. Our state’s experience ending Prohibition is an important reminder that we need to proceed carefully and thoughtfully as we craft the framework for legalizing marijuana.

    Washington kept ahead of the nation during the era leading to the 18th Amendment and then during the years of that curious national experiment, which ultimately proved to be not only an abject failure, but a source of much expense, lawlessness and needless effort and excess. (Marijuana criminalization has imposed similar social and fiscal costs; we have paid hundreds of millions millions on policing and incarceration.)

    Alcohol in this state — as in the rest of the country — was a divisive issue since the early territorial days when fur traders and trappers used “firewater” to pay the indigenous people for animal pelts.

    There were periodic attempts by missionaries and local authorities — notably the Hudson Bay Company, directed by its parent company in London —  to ban alcohol for both white settlers and natives. The HBC believed that if they wanted to restrict the flow of alcohol to the natives, they had to dry up alcohol for settlers as well.

    The Prohibition movement united such groups as the Anti-Saloon League, the Women’s Christian Temperance Union and the Washington Grange, which supported temperance due to a belief that alcohol was detrimental to farm laborers. There was a division between urban areas and rural areas, with cities generally in favor; small towns and farm areas generally opposed. Counties, cities and even unincorporated jurisdictions held “local option” elections, dividing the population into “wets” and “drys.”

    During the 1889 creation of Washington’s constitution, delegates took up four questions: approval of the constitution, Prohibition, women’s suffrage and the location of the state capital. The voters (all men) ratified the constitution, rejected prohibition and women’s suffrage and picked Olympia for the capital.

    In The Dry Years, Dr. Norman Clark described the temperance forces, groups that favored total abstinence, as “dedicated alcohol fighters, absolutely convinced of the evil of all intoxicating drink. … The saloon was evil institutionalized, a symbol and an instrument of Satan’s work.” Dry towns generally did allow alcoholic beverages used for sacramental purposes and permitted pharmacies to sell alcohol for “medicinal purposes” (sound familiar?).

    Women’s suffrage became linked to the controversy during territorial days when women briefly gained the right to vote and supported prohibition measures. In order to win the vote in 1910 — 10 years ahead of the rest of the nation — the suffragists distanced their cause from Prohibition.

    But once they achieved the franchise, women helped enact laws against liquor. Few could fault their distaste for the saloons of the era, which served as a corrupting force, often bilking workmen of their wages.

    When Washington enacted prohibition laws in 1914, ahead of the 18th Amendment, the popular vote was 189,840 for, 171,208 against. Washington was ready for Prohibition, but not for managing it.

    The nation did not provide the necessary forces for apprehending smugglers from nearby Canada and bootleggers were successful in corrupting the very forces that were designated to provide protection from “demon rum.” One of the most successful of the bootleggers was a former Seattle Police lieutenant who, at the height of Prohibition, grossed more than $200,000 a month delivering 200 cases of liquor to Seattle every day. Drug stores where prescription liquor could be obtained for medicinal purposes boomed (with 65 opening in Seattle alone between January and March of 1916).

    Like what you just read? Support high quality local journalism. Become a member of Crosscut today!


    Posted Mon, Dec 17, 5:58 a.m. Inappropriate

    Thanks for the book report, but it doesn't really add anything to the curent discussion.


    Posted Mon, Dec 17, 12:29 p.m. Inappropriate

    Good article Ms. Godden. I think it is quite wise to review history when planning the future. I certainly hope we can avoid a period of 15 month post-repeal lawlessness. The last thing we need is a group of "I told you so" types moving about pointing fingers.

    As for Cameron's insincere comment, since he/she does not approve of you report, what have they to add to the current discussion?


    Posted Mon, Dec 17, 4:18 p.m. Inappropriate

    Thanks for asking. I don't think that Godden's comments offer any solutions or a way forward. She essentially wanted to go to ancient history on prohibition of liquor for guidence on Marijuana, fine, turn on the private sector and get the State to adopt a minimalist regulatory role in the growing, sales and distributon of Marijuana, a product they know nothing about.

    The State should repeal the smoking ban for private clubs, Cigars, Cigarettes, Pipes and Marijuana. They should allow a coffee house model to take advantage of the Marijuana tourism and the revenues will flow to the State with a minimum of overhead. Either the State is "all in" to take advantage of the legalization of recreational Marijuana or it is not.


    Posted Mon, Dec 17, 4:35 p.m. Inappropriate

    Wow, I love your vision! Unfortunately, such boldness is utterly lacking among our local officials, elected or otherwise. I think the fact that the state Liquor Control Board is setting the rules for this enterprise pretty much guarantees that the consumer-friendly 'coffeeshop model' is the last thing that would be adopted. Instead, we should expect something that makes the purchase of marijuana for recreational purposes almost an exercise in self-punishment. It's a pity!

    Posted Mon, Dec 17, 11:08 p.m. Inappropriate

    The problem with the coffee-shop paradigm, my friend, is that it undercuts the business model. Shiftless bums would sit around the shop scarfing the fumes for free while nursing a 75-cent cup of Farmers Coffee and muttering crap about "peace" and "love". Margins would plummet. Surely we all understand that the good old days of simplicity and innocence are long gone.

    The road to maximizing profitability lies with having hermetically sealed individual smoking booths where each client bogarts his or her or its bowl of fine hemp product in splendid isolation. For a modest fee the client can choose among a wide array of stimulating media offerings, ranging from the traditional strobe-light with Grateful Dead basic package to self-selected designer configurations such as Lady Gaga with walnuts and buttery gorgonzola. Each experience would be unique -- and priced accordingly.


    Posted Tue, Dec 18, 8:43 a.m. Inappropriate

    Even that sounds enticing--though perhaps it's something one could replicate at home just as well..? (The need to mix with others and make this a social experience will either drive the legal market or drive an illegal, underground one--but the demand for this will be there.) But I still expect our wise folks at the Liquor Board to come up with something as banal, boring, and frills-free as possible so that our legal approval of recreational pot use does not prove too appealing to the youngsters. (While it's a close call, moral posturing still manages to trump greed in Utah North, the state of Washington.)

    Posted Tue, Dec 18, 7:28 a.m. Inappropriate

    Kind of a POT PEEP SHOW Booth model, gottcha woofer. Hey and for the cheapskates they can vent the booths to a roof top garden for a contact buzz!


    Login or register to add your voice to the conversation.

    Join Crosscut now!
    Subscribe to our Newsletter

    Follow Us »