cannabisnews.com: I-75: a Dopey Idea 





I-75: a Dopey Idea 
Posted by CN Staff on September 08, 2003 at 21:05:41 PT
Editorial
Source: Seattle Times
Marijuana as medicine was not a hard sell. Once it was explained that smoking hemp allowed seriously sick patients to keep from vomiting their medication, it was not reasonable to deny it. This page supported that for humanitarian reasons, even though a statewide initiative was effectively an attempt by a state to nullify a federal law. Seattle's Initiative 75 is another step down the same road, and with less-compelling justification. This page does not support it. 
The Seattle initiative broadens the reach to recreational marijuana, a matter that does not come with the aura of medical urgency. It also would set police department policy by initiative, a course this page disagrees with. As a law, I-75 doesn't change much, and probably wouldn't do anything really terrible. It says that the City Attorney's Office, which prosecutes misdemeanor cases (possession of less than 40 grams), shall assign the lowest priority to cases in which marijuana was intended for adult personal use. It gives the same directive to the Seattle Police Department, which conducts misdemeanor and felony arrests. The initiative does not apply to King County, which decides whether to prosecute felony cases. Seattle's policy is already to put a low priority on marijuana busts, and there is no political threat to that policy. To write the policy into law through an initiative does not remove any existing penalty or impose a penalty. It is toothless. But I-75 is really not a law. It is a cultural statement about recreational drug use, and a political statement that the city of Seattle stands for legalization. It is a kind of lobbying. That is why the money for the I-75 campaign has come overwhelmingly from out of state. Consider the top four contributors: Peter Lewis, chairman of the Progressive Corp., a high-risk auto insurer in Ohio, $40,000; the Tides Foundation, a San Francisco promoter of left-wing causes, $30,000; the American Civil Liberties Union, $27,303; and the Marijuana Policy Project, a pro-legalization outfit in Washington, D.C., $17,500. These are not people concerned primarily with the interests of Seattle people, but with pushing toward legalization generally. It is their right to do that, but they should do it openly and in the forum where this issue belongs: Congress. Not here. Source: Seattle Times (WA)Published:  September 7, 2003Copyright: 2003 The Seattle Times CompanyContact: opinion seatimes.comWebsite: http://www.seattletimes.com/Related Articles and Web Site:Marijuana Policy Projecthttp://www.mpp.org/Weeding Out City's Initiativehttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread17216.shtmlHazy Future for Marijuana Initiativehttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread17193.shtmlRally Calls For Reform of Marijuana Law http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread17168.shtml
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #7 posted by mayan on September 09, 2003 at 06:26:50 PT
"Toothless"
"Seattle's policy is already to put a low priority on marijuana busts, and there is no political threat to that policy. To write the policy into law through an initiative does not remove any existing penalty or impose a penalty. It is toothless."If I-75 is "toothless" then why does the Seattle Times feel compelled to write an editorial against it? The way out is the way in...Michael Meacher vindicates FTW's position on 9/11:
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/090803_meecher.htmlFTW Ad Campaign is Back(scroll down to view ad)
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/ad_updates.html9/11 conspiracy theories gaining ground:
http://iafrica.com/news/worldnews/268874.htmThe Unanswered Questions Of 9/11 
http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/archive/scoop/stories/7a/ab/200309051116.fb0f238e.html9/11 - Two Events in Berlin Question Official Story:
http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/archive/scoop/stories/68/5f/200309051115.e91bd6ba.html
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #6 posted by pokesmotter on September 09, 2003 at 06:12:46 PT:
i knew it was going to be bad when
the author said "smoking hemp."
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #5 posted by Jose Melendez on September 09, 2003 at 06:08:21 PT
I have to say:
I agree with the last phrase of this article, that Congress is where cannabis ought rightly be rescheduled from class I to class V, or removed from drug scheduling outright. Check out this column by William Seewald, from:http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v03/n1352/a10.html?397Holy Civil Liberties! Hold Tight To Bill Of Rights The American "wars" on terrorism and drugs grow conveniently and disturbingly more interchangeable.  The same American operations in Colombia that used to be termed anti-drug are now "anti-terrorist." Nothing changed but the term for the "enemy." (snipped)
Holy Civil Liberties! Hold Tight To Bill Of Rights
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #4 posted by byrd on September 09, 2003 at 04:20:42 PT
$27303 to the ACLU
"These are not people concerned primarily with the interests of Seattle people ..."Yeah. Right.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #3 posted by billos on September 09, 2003 at 04:19:43 PT:
How??
"These are not people concerned primarily with the interests of Seattle people, but with pushing toward legalization generally. It is their right to do that, but they should do it openly and in the forum where this issue belongs: Congress. Not here".I totally agree. However the writer failed to tell us just how we get congress to listen, for they listen not. No matter who seems to be pushing, congress has perpetually turned a deaf hear. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #2 posted by OverwhelmSam on September 09, 2003 at 03:52:44 PT:
Stone Walling
We've been writing Congress on every issue regarding legalization of marijuana and all we get are glib replies. Congress is stone walling us (no pun intended). Next best thing, make changes at the State & Municipal level to the point that Federal Law has no teeth.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by John Tyler on September 08, 2003 at 22:08:55 PT
The will of the people
That is the opinion of the Seattle Times. Other people have different opinions. I think the people behind this initative are of the opinion that at every opportunity they must speak out and declare that they are for freedom from unnessary government intrusion in their private lives. By having a vote the political leaders will hopefully "get the message". If they don't, new politicial leaders can be elected that will do the will of the people.
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment