Sometimes-loved ACLU lawyer Allison Holcomb and unlikely ally Sharon Foster (Chairwoman of the WA Liquor Control Board) have publicly stated that, should it come to it, they will pursue legal action against the cities/counties that opt for I-502 moratoriums.

I have not often found myself aligned with Holcomb (though she is more or less on the right side of things) and certainly I have been no friend of the Liquor Board. But they do make some valid points.

Holcomb states, “the preemption provision in our state controlled substances act specifically provides, ‘Local laws and ordinances that are inconsistent with the requirements of state law shall not be enacted and are preempted and repealed, regardless of the nature of the code, charter, or home rule status of the city, town, county, or municipality.’ RCW 69.50.608. Our new state marijuana law specifically requires the Liquor Control Board, in determining the number of stores per county, to provide “adequate access to licensed sources … to discourage purchases from the illegal market.” RCW 69.50.345(2). It is inconsistent with this state law requirement to allow counties to ban stores entirely.”

Chairwoman Foster agrees, stating that the AG’s “opinion would be a disappointment to the majority of voters who approved the law. If some local governments impose bans it will impact public safety by allowing the current illicit market to continue. It will also reduce the state’s expectations for revenue generated from the legal system we are putting in place.”

On the surface I didn’t really see how a few counties keeping cannabis on the fringes would cause too much harm. But thinking about it in the light of allowing illicit markets to remain, however hyper-local, I think it is a bad seed to plant.

Oh, and the state will lose money. While I suspect that lost cashola is their biggest gripe, the fight is one I can support with a clean conscience.