Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« It's the Sabbatical Year! | The P-I Endorses Roads and Tra... »

Monday, October 8, 2007

Shit’s in the PI

posted by on October 8 at 9:09 AM

Yeah, yeah: it’s a law enforcement story. But a brainless one, like all the others about marijuana grow operations. This headline was up on the PI’s website Saturday afternoon:

Pot industry taking violent turn for worse

In little more than two months, three killings have been linked to Puget Sound-area indoor marijuana farms.

And here’s the story—forty one paragraphs about indoor grow ops in King County, the violence associated with them, the emerging Southeast Asian connection, and the deleterious impact all of this is having on the quality of the food served in area Vietnamese restaurants. Seriously. But there isn’t a single graph in Levi Pulkkinen’s story—not one sentence, not a measly parenthetical, not a hint—about how marijuana prohibition is responsible for the lawlessness that Pulkkinen writes about takes dictation from the police about.

Want to get criminals out of the “pot industry”? Want to put an end to the violence? Want to get indoor grow-ops out of our neighborhoods? Legalize pot, tax the shit out of it, and let American farmers grow it—out in their fields, in the sunshine, just as God intended marijuana to grow. It will raise billions for the state (we could finance universal health insurance at a stroke), put an end to the violence associated with the illegal marijuana trade (just as putting an end to alcohol prohibition put and end to the violence associated with the illegal booze trade), and quickly improve the quality of the offerings at area Vietnamese restaurants. Seriously.

Legalize pot. Everybody wins and fewer people get hurt.

It would be great if the PI was as anxious to inform its readers about the benefits of marijuana legalization—and the futility of the war on pot (anybody at the PI having any trouble scoring pot lately? didn’t think so)—as the paper is to breathlessly report every heroic detail of the local, state, and federal government’s destructive and ineffective war on a plant. How many times do we have to read the exact same story about pot? Grow op busted! Violence associated with illegal activity! So many tons seized! Blah blah blah.

When will the daily papers stop helping to wage the drug war and start actually reporting on it?

RSS icon Comments

1

There's isn't? Indeed.

Legalize pot. Indeed.

Posted by Mr. Poe | October 8, 2007 9:13 AM
2

Mr. Poe is on the scene. Tune in and tune out dude. Smoke out like a mad hatter.

Posted by Toby Weymiller | October 8, 2007 9:16 AM
3

If common sense about marijuana prevailed I would not have been WITHOUT WEED for the last four days. I could go to the freaking store and buy some...

Posted by It's Mark Mitchell | October 8, 2007 9:22 AM
4

The History Channel ran (re-ran, I assume) a special this weekend on "Marijuana, and how it became illegal" or somesuch. It didn't have information that I haven't already seen in Martin Booth's Cannabis or other places, but it was good to see it televised, anyway.

Posted by JMR | October 8, 2007 9:23 AM
5

Word.

Now my first fragment in my #1 comment doesn't make any sense. Awesome.

Posted by Mad Hatter | October 8, 2007 9:26 AM
6

@3:

I've been hearing through a couple of my sources that the supply chain has dried up the past few weeks, possibly due to those big outdoor busts, the recent indoor busts, and probably from the mid-level distributors lying low for a bit.

So, I can definitely tell you, you're not the only person out there scraping resin right now.

Posted by COMTE | October 8, 2007 9:27 AM
7

It'd pay for universal health care AND the light rail system that no way in fuck should be financed by sales taxes.

The Twin Cities built a light rail line a couple of years back with no new taxes. Portland's MAX uses a very modest tax on the largest businesses, and certainly no sales taxes.

Light rail, fine. But don't try to finance it with even more sales taxes.

Get green trains up and running on green revenues.

Posted by legalize it | October 8, 2007 9:47 AM
8

Comon guys, smoking weed kills polar bears. CO2 emissions from smoking doobies are hurting the earth.

Could you really look a baby polar bear in it's innocent eyes and say "sorry little buddy, but I gotta have my medicine"

You people make me sick.

Posted by polar bears for the drug war | October 8, 2007 9:51 AM
9

Well said, Dan. The PI and the Times are both horrendous when it comes to reporting on this issue.

Posted by thehim | October 8, 2007 9:54 AM
10

More to the point, PBFTDW, if the Feds would stop burning all those acres and acres of outdoor grown bud, there'd be far less CO2 going into the atmosphere, thus decreasing the rate of Global Warming.

So, the obvious solution is: "Legalize Pot, Save the Polar Bears!"

Posted by COMTE | October 8, 2007 9:58 AM
11

Now I have to choose between polar bears and pot? Noooooo!!!

Posted by Amelia | October 8, 2007 9:58 AM
12

Thank God I got my order in in time!

Posted by Sally Struthers Lawnchair | October 8, 2007 9:59 AM
13

Well, the problem is that the media operates within a moral framework of what's right and wrong, and unfortunately there just aren't enough people who believe that marijuana shouldn't be illegal for there to be the necessary sea change. The media's going to stick to the status quo and the status quo is 'pot is illegal, pot is bad.'

Also, it must be said: rather fresh of the Editorial Director of the Stranger to criticize a media outlet for helping to further an agenda instead of reporting on the issues.

Posted by Gomez | October 8, 2007 10:00 AM
14

Regardless of the positives in legalizing marijuana ... the Federal Government will not go for it ... just like they don't believe that people with terminal illnesses who are in tremendous pain 24 hours a day should have the right to end their lives on their own terms.

Posted by Gordon Werner | October 8, 2007 10:08 AM
15

you do understand that the PI is fufilling its societal role PERFECTLY in this case? the role of a corporate newspaper is to establish the limits of acceptable debate.

the legality or illegality of a schedule 1 narcotic is not part of our society's acceptable debate.

Posted by maxsolomon | October 8, 2007 10:12 AM
16

@13
Gomez,
The percentage of Americans who want pot to be legalized is over 10% higher than the approval ratings for the President, yet that is definitely not reflected in the media. The reason isn't public opinion alone, it's an unwilling to challenge a very small, but very powerful assortment of interests who benefit from keeping the drug war active.

Posted by thehim | October 8, 2007 10:26 AM
17

Why does Seattle have such a reputation as a pot-friendly city? The media's hostile to it, hardly anyone I know here uses it, and I've never been able to find it here.

Posted by James | October 8, 2007 10:27 AM
18

Clearly James, you need to enlarge your social circle. Generally, Pot is about as easy to score here as a decaff double-tall skinny no-whip mochaccino.

Although just not this past week, apparently.

Posted by COMTE | October 8, 2007 10:34 AM
19

People still smoke resin?

Posted by Paulus | October 8, 2007 10:41 AM
20

Honestly, I think the solution to this is for people who aren't anti-pot to start talking about it. It is perfectly acceptable, in many environments, for people to talk about how they got drunk the night before, but unacceptable to discuss pot smoking.

Ok, I don't know where I'm going with this....must be all the weed I smoked last night.

Posted by Dianna | October 8, 2007 10:42 AM
21

All I can get is dirt brown. At least you all are a two hour drive from BC.

Posted by Mike in MO | October 8, 2007 10:43 AM
22

The Pee-Eye takes dictation from the police because the Pee-Eye needs access to sources inside police department for all kinds of routine stuff. The trade-off is that the paper doesn't challenge the cops on drugs.

Posted by Ronald | October 8, 2007 10:44 AM
23

If you think it's not already a part of acceptable debate in our society, you aren't paying attention. Plenty of people agree that pot should be legalized. However, there are much larger forces at work that make any legalization debate a sticky one indeed.

I'll give you a hint: it's not about pot being a dangerous drug, because science and millions of users agree: it ain't.

Posted by Cale | October 8, 2007 10:53 AM
24

16. You're still talking about a marginal minority, even after the increase.

You're deluding yourself if you seriously think there's a majority groundswell, or anything close to it, to have pot legalized.

Posted by Gomez | October 8, 2007 10:59 AM
25

Isn't Dan Savage the guy who calls for parents to scream at their children?

Posted by Dan's an expert? | October 8, 2007 10:59 AM
26

To COMTE @18:

After seeing these comments, perhaps I should rephrase... Seattle doesn't seem like a pot-friendly city. It seems almost like a pot-elite city. It appears to be difficult, if not impossible, to make your way into the right social circles to find any. I think it wraps in nicely with Seattle's reputation as a difficult city to establish oneself in, make friends, and foster social connections.

But, then again, I've been wrong before. And look forward to being proven wrong here!

What's a mochaccino? :-)

Posted by James | October 8, 2007 11:08 AM
27

#10 Yeah! you're right! Now I'm fighting for the right to bear doobies.. hehe.

#7, ah yes Portland, the city that almost works.

For example, despite the lack of regressive taxes in Oregon, they still manage to find a way to fuck over the poor: ie) a $57 million gap in the Portland school budget. Where'd that money go? You guessed it. Still think light rail can be payed for by a modest tax increase?

Washington may be tax and spend, but at least we aren't sacrificing our other public amenities. We may be asking our poor to help shoulder the burden of an excellent mass transit system, but at least we aren't taking away from things like the quality of their schools.

Posted by polar bears AGAINST the drug war | October 8, 2007 11:12 AM
28
Posted by sugfk | October 8, 2007 11:23 AM
29

A long, long time ago, in a state university far, far away, I covered the cops beat for the student newspaper at UT-Austin. I learned 2 things from that job: 1) I didn't want to be a journalist and 2) In order to cover the cops beat, you have to abide by the rules the cops set for you, or they won't talk to you any more and you won't have a job anymore. It's a little-known fact, but police exercise a remarkable degree of control over how local crime is covered. Much more so than in political or court reporting, I'd say, and much more insidious.

Posted by Providence | October 8, 2007 11:24 AM
30

James,

Don't assume your social circle isn't the "right social circle". In my experience, and I've lived here for more than 20 years, you would be amazed at the number of people YOU KNOW who smoke pot; they just don't talk about it, as Diana @20 quite correctly points out.

Regardless of the more progressive attitudes about marijuana use that have developed over the past few decades, even here in Pot Friendly Seattle (HempFest, after all, is the single largest annual gathering of pro-legalization advocates - read: stoners - in the U.S.), there's still a general reluctance to broach the subject in mixed company, and many people are under the mistaken assumption that THEY are the only ones they know in their immediate social circles who actively partake. They're generally very surprised to discover that many of their "normal" friends, while perhaps not regular users, at least occasionally indulge. It's just that most of us who do don't fit the physical profile of a typical "pothead": we don't sport long hair, Bob Marley T-shirts, or perpetual red-eye, so we're not as easy to spot as the stoner kids they knew in HS or college.

Be subtle, drop a few hints among your friends - I think you may be pleasantly surprised by the response.

Posted by COMTE | October 8, 2007 11:26 AM
31

And yet, with all the popular support for legalization, what's the strongest activism we get? 10,000 people lighting up in Myrtle Edwards Park? In a city where pot is the lowest police priority? That's not a recipe for change, that's just playing safe.

If people want to take the training wheels off the cause, they need to go to DC.

Posted by Greg | October 8, 2007 12:25 PM
32

Hey, Greg. Try 100,000 people in Myrtle Edwards Park... per day. Oh, and we de-prioritized marijuana enforcement in Seattle, passed a medical-marijuana law in the state, and modified that law in the legislature. That kind of "activism" sets the table for statewide decriminalization. Plus, King County is home to one of the most dynamic and effective drug-law reform movements in the U.S.--King County Bar Association, ACLU of Washington, King County Medical Society, the Defender Association, and lots of other mainstream institutions work on drug-policy reform. So even though the going is slow it is going strong in this corner of the country.

Oh, and about D.C. -- NORML was founded in Washington, D.C. in 1970. Most national drug-policy organizations are based there. Maybe you should send them some money.

Posted by Dominic Holden | October 8, 2007 12:51 PM
33

How about putting it in terms most people can relate to? $$$ Prohibition costs the government billions every year. How about not just legalizing and taxing the kind of hemp that gets you high? How about the hemp that doesn't get you high and grows wild all over the Midwest? It's the most fibrous plant on the planet, and we could be making ethanol out of it instead of using food crops (or importing oil from unstable countries in the Middle East). That's just one thing that can be done with this most wonderous plant. The list goes on an on.

Posted by Barbara | October 8, 2007 1:25 PM
34

Greg might have left out a zero, but 100,000 people a day (none of which we can assure weren't repeat visitors on multiple, which would dilute the grand total), out of a city of 600,000 people, which doesn't include everyone in Puget Sound living outside city limits... a populace that is one of the most liberal, supportive cities towards undoing the marijuana ban, no less... doesn't exactly indicate a powerful enough groundswell to indicate a sociocultural sea change.

Posted by Gomez | October 8, 2007 2:35 PM
35

All right, Holden, I'll concede that what I wrote was poorly thought out.

Still, though: 100,000 people smoking weed in Myrtle Edwards park? Safe.

100,000 people smoking weed in the National Mall? Activism.

Posted by Greg | October 8, 2007 2:46 PM
36

What a short memory we have, Greg. Smoking pot in Seattle parks is "safe" because of activism. People used to get busted at Hempfest en masse until the event incrementally normalized pot smoking. I-75 codified the city's pot tolerance. By making that disposition part of the region's identity, passing legislative reforms, and building influential networks, this issue is "safer" than ever. Here, at least.

But the job ain't over, and it ain't over there... Lobbying in Washington, D.C. is a waste of time; Congress isn't going to pass sweeping marijuana legislation until states prove that legalizing marijuana won't lead to reefer madness. Washington state must establish that model in a way that won't conflict with federal law (which is entirely possible).

So holding the world's largest pot rally in Seattle along with a dynamic drug-law reform movement: Essential.

Smoking pot on the National Mall: Like jerking off in front of the mirror (besides, you need a million people to make a statement on the Mall).

Gomez, sir, I think you're wrong. In 1991, when Hempfest began, there was no meaningful drug-law reform movement in the U.S. Hempfest's attendance and organization have grown and, simultaneously, so has public support for drug policy reform. Be patient and support organizations doing good work.

Posted by Dominic Holden | October 8, 2007 4:24 PM
37

I am properly chastized, sir.

Posted by Greg | October 8, 2007 5:12 PM
38

re gomez and others: clearly you're correct that there isn't a groundswell for flat out legalizing pot (and other drugs). And if put out for an up or down vote, legalization would lose almost everywhere.

But, having said that, what amazes me is that I haven't actually encountered very many folks who support prohibition in a long time. I'm talking regular people, not cops, jail guards, politicians. Hell, half the republicans I know smoke pot and the other half have a relative who does. When I bring up drugs with most people, they look over their shoulders and then quietly say "we should legalize it."

We may be getting to tipping point here.

Posted by gnossos | October 9, 2007 12:32 AM
39

The way to get criminals out of the industry is to legalize the industry? Well, let's legalize rape and robbery so the P-I can stop rationalizing those crimes, too. I always laugh when you, the messenger, urge your readers to kill another messenger. I thus assume you wish to legalize that as well, but let's at least make hypocrisy a felony.

Posted by billy | October 9, 2007 7:49 AM
40

Actually, if you're looking to blame someone for the evil grow ops, you might want to scrutinize the financial industry. Greedy assholes who figured out how to monetize debt instruments then kept heavy political pressure on Congress and the Fed to keep the money supply really loose are largely responsible for the mortgage crisis. That (with some help from a small military action we're currently involved in) severely impacted the value of the dollar. Canadian imports of all sorts are now more expensive -- hell, even the stinky Mexican crap has appreciated -- so that the cost-benefit analysis of growing in Canada and shipping across the border, discounted for seizure, no longer makes sense. The pricepoint will begin to top off the demand curve soon as prices rise -- with the exception of you frou-frou yuppies who would *never* toke domestic. Hence, grow ops on this side of the border suddenly present a viable value proposition.

Didn't any of you burners take econ 101?

Posted by Prof. Bernie T. Smokely | October 9, 2007 9:53 AM
41
Posted by zwgss | October 18, 2007 1:19 PM
42
Posted by zwgss | October 18, 2007 1:20 PM
43
Posted by edgza | October 18, 2007 8:10 PM
44
Posted by ahlxv | October 19, 2007 1:29 AM
45
Posted by ahlxv | October 19, 2007 1:29 AM
46
Posted by ahlxv | October 19, 2007 1:29 AM
47
Posted by gvvsz | October 19, 2007 11:44 AM
48
Posted by wwcsi | October 22, 2007 10:29 AM
49
Posted by wwcsi | October 22, 2007 10:29 AM
50
Posted by ottgm | October 22, 2007 2:20 PM
51
Posted by ottgm | October 22, 2007 2:20 PM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).