cannabisnews.com: Marijuana Measure May Be Superfluous





Marijuana Measure May Be Superfluous
Posted by CN Staff on July 26, 2002 at 07:41:54 PT
By Brian Moore, Seattle Times Staff Reporter 
Source: Seattle Times
Some state and local officials say a proposed initiative intended to free police resources for serious crime by relaxing marijuana-law enforcement would do just the opposite, creating burdensome reporting requirements for possession laws that already receive low priority. "The implication is that there are hundreds of thousands of people in jail because they smoke a joint on Friday night," Lt. Gov. Brad Owen said. "I have confidence that law enforcement has not made marijuana arrests of casual pot smokers a high priority in the city of Seattle." 
Owens speculated the initiative could also create legal hurdles for prosecutors, giving suspected marijuana offenders a legal loophole by pleading that police placed too high a priority on their case. Members of the Sensible Seattle Coalition filed 19,600 signatures Monday in support of Initiative 75, about 2,400 more than it needs to go before Seattle voters on the Nov. 5 ballot. The proposed measure does not call for a change in marijuana laws but for law-enforcement officers to make personal marijuana possession by adults their lowest priority. It also would require police and the City Attorney's Office to report marijuana prosecutions to a Marijuana Policy Review Panel. The 11-person panel, proposed to be created by the Seattle City Council, would evaluate the effects of the ordinance after five years. The group's campaign manager, Dominic Holden, who has long supported relaxing marijuana laws in Seattle, believes this is the closest that such an initiative has come to reaching the city ballot. The signatures are now in the hands of the King County Elections office, where they are being screened to ensure they are from registered voters. The initiative would then need City Council approval before landing on the ballot. At least some council members are already showing support. Councilman Nick Licata has endorsed the initiative, saying it would help educate the public that marijuana is not as dangerous as some in law enforcement make it out to be. Licata argues that data support that marijuana is not an addictive drug. Sara Nelson, legislative aide for Councilman Richard Conlin, who was out of town, said Conlin has not read the initiative but, in general, supports decriminalization of marijuana use. Other City Council members did not respond to requests seeking comment yesterday. Seattle Police Chief Gil Kerlikowske was reviewing the initiative yesterday but was not prepared to comment. The initiative is unlike most others passed in the United States because it does not limit itself to the use of marijuana for medical reasons. The Oakland, Calif., City Council passed a resolution in 1996 requiring police to make enforcement of possessing, selling or cultivating marijuana for medical use its lowest priority. But Lt. Benson Fairow of the Oakland police vice-narcotics section said the city directive has had virtually no effect on law enforcement. Like most agencies, Fairow said, Oakland police weren't placing great emphasis on marijuana users to begin with. There has not been any indication that the resolution has been effective in shifting police resources toward more serious crime, Fairow said. "We're not interested in the AIDS patient that is growing a couple of plants, and we never have been," Fairow said. "Weed has not been a priority for many years, and this resolution didn't really change that." The Seattle City Attorney's Office reports that less than 150 of its 17,000 misdemeanor criminal cases last year were for the possession of marijuana. That's an indication that police do not place priority on marijuana laws, said Kathryn Harper, spokeswoman for the city attorney. Licata agrees that police don't put excessive resources into marijuana-possession arrests but likes that I-75 would reinforce its low priority. "I think that it's better to have our limited funds for public safety being directed toward car prowlers and home burglaries, rather than arresting adults for smoking marijuana," Licata said. Complete Title: Marijuana Measure May Be Superfluous, Some Officials Say Newshawk: Nicholas Thimmesch - http://www.norml.org/ Source: Seattle Times (WA)Author: Brian Moore, Seattle Times Staff Reporter Published: Friday, July 26, 2002Copyright: 2001 The Seattle Times CompanyContact: opinion seatimes.comWebsite: http://www.seattletimes.com/Related Article:Pot - A Special Series - Seattle Weeklyhttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread10673.shtmlCannabisNews - Cannabis Archiveshttp://cannabisnews.com/news/list/cannabis.shtml
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #5 posted by freedom fighter on July 26, 2002 at 17:21:37 PT
Notice the pattern?
Walters stating that we don't put 15 yr old boys in prisons for carrying a baggie??What a crock!!!As long the said "law" is in the book, there are so many "LAW AND ORDER" type of folks who will follow the book.Book this freak!ff
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #4 posted by BGreen on July 26, 2002 at 13:40:28 PT
THEIR NEWEST LIE
The standard party line has the criminalizers telling us the war on cannabis smokers has just been a figment of our imagination, telling us that arresting casual cannabis smokers isn't a top priority, insinuating it's as rare as them actually solving a major crime.Why, may I ask, were there over 600,000 arrests for simple possession in the US in the year 2000 if very few of these people are going to jail? Isn't there a difference between being arrested and held in a jail cell until your bail is set, or until your trial, and being SENTENCED BY A JUDGE to jail time? If those people were included in the final tally, you'd find that over 600,000 US citizens spend SOME time in jail for simple possession. If the person has lost their job because they couldn't pay a high bail to get out of jail to go to work, then WTF difference does it make that a judge doesn't add MORE jail time?Tune in the show COPS any day on Court TV and watch the way they treat the casual cannabis user. I've only seen them let somebody go after catching them with cannabis a couple of times, but it was so out of the ordinary, I'd bet everything it was staged for the benefit of the cameras.I'm getting so F'ing tired of these idiots telling me that my 25 years of living in fear of my gov't has just been a figment of my paranoid imagination. These people should be challenged immediately when they spout these lies.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #3 posted by JHarshaw on July 26, 2002 at 11:02:48 PT
Irrelevant Numbers
"The implication is that there are hundreds of thousands of people in jail because they smoke a joint on Friday night,"
    Lt. Gov. Brad Owen said.Even ONE is too many.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #2 posted by John Tyler on July 26, 2002 at 09:55:19 PT
Cops
We only use weed possession charges against minorities anyway, when we can't get them for anything else, so why should anybody else worry. Trust us. We won't charge you, unless we have to. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by observer on July 26, 2002 at 08:39:26 PT
Weaseling in Washington
"The implication is that there are hundreds of thousands of people in jail because they smoke a joint on Friday night," Lt. Gov. Brad Owen said. "I have confidence that law enforcement has not made marijuana arrests of casual pot smokers a high priority in the city of Seattle."Oh, well, that's just dandy, then. In that case, there should be no problem, merely formalizing this practice into law, eh? Or, is it that police/prosecutors/politicians want it both ways? 'We never ever arrest anyone for mere marijuana possession,' they pretend (fingers crossed behind back). But we want to retain the power (to do what we never ever do, honest!)That doesn't pass the straight face test."The implication is that there are hundreds of thousands of people in jail because they smoke a joint on Friday night," Lt. Gov. Brad Owen said.Yes, that's the "implication" ... notice how he doesn't deny it. Instead, he insinuates a denial. When the numbers are revealed (which, he knows better than to mention), he can always say "Why, I never denied that X number of people were arrested for marijuana!""I have confidence that law enforcement has not made marijuana arrests of casual pot smokers a high priority in the city of Seattle."Yeah right. More weaseling. I think he really means to say, "When 'law' enforcement is out in hot pursuit of a murderer, arresting marijuana users isn't the highest priority. All other times, pot smokers -- meaning big seizure and treatment dolars for police and government -- will continue to be prime targets."Gotcha.
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment