Slog
News & ArtsMonday, October 15, 2012
Drugs Fuck Gestures and Symbolism, I-502 Will Save Lives
Posted by Dominic Holden on Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 9:29 AM
I'll start by agreeing with Goldy: The worst punishment for possessing a bag of pot is being killed in jail, which basically happened last week to a Snohomish County man facing a minor pot charge. That was awful. But Goldy's other assessment—that Initiative 502 on the fall ballot to legalize pot is mostly "symbolic" as a challenge to federal law—is wrong.
Regardless of any federal challenge or its outcome, passing I-502 will eliminate state penalties for possessing up to an ounce of pot. That's entirely practical. Misdemeanor pot arrests—the type Goldy's post is about, which make up 90 percent of the pot busts in Washington State—would end, thereby stopping about 9,000 marijuana arrests per year. Washington would be the first state to do that, and if we'd done it sooner, it would have saved that poor man's life in Snohomish County.
As for the symbolism of challenging federal law, that's also practical. Federal law ain't going to change itself. Congress and the White House will be unresponsive to the changing tides of opinion on pot until states make a big fucking to-do about it—just folks are doing with gay marriage. Now the president and the Democratic party are all about legalizing gay marriage. Not in spite of a federal challenge to DOMA and Prop 8, I'd argue, but because of it.
1
When did Goldy say 502 is merely symbolic? Goldy, that's completely stupid. Here's why: 502 has two components.
1. Sales/taxation through the state.
2. Legalization.
#1 will be challenged like mad in court and Lord knows by what avenues by the Feds, because they must, and good--it will be headed for SCOTUS and a ton of visibility on the problems in general.
#2 will leave the Federal government utterly impotent. Here's why: the Supreme Court JUST said that the Federal government CANNOT penalize a state with lack of or cut funding for failure to implement or follow Federal law. My reading of this is that the Federal government cannot explicitly pass legislation or orders that penalize WA state to change this freedom to smoke marijuana. They also cannot take funding.
How did we enforce speed limits nationally? We threatened to cut road money from states unless they got on board. You can't do that today, per the Supreme Court and the ACA decisions.
So, even if the Federal government challenges #1--and yeah, they definitely will--what exactly are they going to do against #2? Put DEA and FBI agents at Hempfest to arrest people for simple possession? Do random neighborhood sweeps on weekends around Broadway to look for the smell of marijuana? Not a chance in hell.
If it got real bad--which it won't--we're in the city one trivial city ballot measure with one rich person's backing or the backing of say The Stranger rom passing a law that would order the SPD from enforcing any laws or spending any fiscal or asset resources in aiding the Federal government in enforcement.
This is anything but symbolic, and if/when it passes--along with Colorado and Michigan legislation--is pretty much the opening mortal gut wound in the end over time of prohibition. Anyone who doesn't think so is delusional or overly paranoid to comical levels.
More...
1. Sales/taxation through the state.
2. Legalization.
#1 will be challenged like mad in court and Lord knows by what avenues by the Feds, because they must, and good--it will be headed for SCOTUS and a ton of visibility on the problems in general.
#2 will leave the Federal government utterly impotent. Here's why: the Supreme Court JUST said that the Federal government CANNOT penalize a state with lack of or cut funding for failure to implement or follow Federal law. My reading of this is that the Federal government cannot explicitly pass legislation or orders that penalize WA state to change this freedom to smoke marijuana. They also cannot take funding.
How did we enforce speed limits nationally? We threatened to cut road money from states unless they got on board. You can't do that today, per the Supreme Court and the ACA decisions.
So, even if the Federal government challenges #1--and yeah, they definitely will--what exactly are they going to do against #2? Put DEA and FBI agents at Hempfest to arrest people for simple possession? Do random neighborhood sweeps on weekends around Broadway to look for the smell of marijuana? Not a chance in hell.
If it got real bad--which it won't--we're in the city one trivial city ballot measure with one rich person's backing or the backing of say The Stranger rom passing a law that would order the SPD from enforcing any laws or spending any fiscal or asset resources in aiding the Federal government in enforcement.
This is anything but symbolic, and if/when it passes--along with Colorado and Michigan legislation--is pretty much the opening mortal gut wound in the end over time of prohibition. Anyone who doesn't think so is delusional or overly paranoid to comical levels.
2
You too Dominic?
"We must legalize pot so that no one else dies of food allergies while in police custody!"
"Yeah! Wait, what?"
"We must legalize pot so that no one else dies of food allergies while in police custody!"
"Yeah! Wait, what?"
3
I offer a wager that IF I 502 does pass, the number of cannabis arrests WILL NOT decrease in 2013. Since you are so sure Dominic, odds aren't a problem to you right? I'll take ten dollars at twenty to one....
4
Yeah I have decided to go ahead and vote for this deeply flawed initiative. I have been in favor of legalizing dope and hemp since the 1960s and helped to circulate the BLOSSOM petition in 1971 (Basic Liberation of the Smokers and Sympathizers of Marijuana) but I had a problem with this initiative.
There's little scientific evidence that any amount, let alone five nanograms (that's one two hundredths of a microgram) of THC consistently causes impairment of a person's ability to safely operate a motor vehicle. I fear that this provision could result in anyone who is even passively exposed to marijuana being jailed as a "drunk driver" based solely on a laboratory test of questionable accuracy or validity.
I have a friend who works at the Snohomish County jail and consider Sheriff John Lovick to be a friend too. The death of this young fellow can't be separated from the ridiculous anti marijuana laws that resulted in his incarceration. If this passes no judge will be able to send someone to jail because they were caught near a small amount of hemp flowers, and that will be progress.
There's little scientific evidence that any amount, let alone five nanograms (that's one two hundredths of a microgram) of THC consistently causes impairment of a person's ability to safely operate a motor vehicle. I fear that this provision could result in anyone who is even passively exposed to marijuana being jailed as a "drunk driver" based solely on a laboratory test of questionable accuracy or validity.
I have a friend who works at the Snohomish County jail and consider Sheriff John Lovick to be a friend too. The death of this young fellow can't be separated from the ridiculous anti marijuana laws that resulted in his incarceration. If this passes no judge will be able to send someone to jail because they were caught near a small amount of hemp flowers, and that will be progress.
5
Since there will continue to be cannabis related arrests even if I 502 passes, this argument is flawed at best. At worst this argument is just emotional propaganda...
6
Of course there will still be arrests, for things like DUI. How will there be arrests for simple possession and use?
Any of you that think there will be some mythical free-for-all law ever passed are insane. It will ALWAYS be as tightly controlled, in theory, as alcohol is today. Always.
Any of you that think there will be some mythical free-for-all law ever passed are insane. It will ALWAYS be as tightly controlled, in theory, as alcohol is today. Always.
8
@4: I'm glad you've come around to voting for it, but I want to take the time to explain something about this claim: "I fear that this provision could result in anyone who is even passively exposed to marijuana being jailed as a "drunk driver" based solely on a laboratory test of questionable accuracy or validity."
In the status quo, having 0ng of active THC can result in a DUI conviction if you have metabolite in your blood. Metabolite that stays in your blood for a very long time after your last time being exposed. Metabolite that is determined "based solely on a laboratory test of questionable ... validity" (a gas chromatography-mass spectromety test isn't of questionable accuracy). I-502 actually _improves_ the status quo for DUI law, contrary to the opposition claims.
In the status quo, having 0ng of active THC can result in a DUI conviction if you have metabolite in your blood. Metabolite that stays in your blood for a very long time after your last time being exposed. Metabolite that is determined "based solely on a laboratory test of questionable ... validity" (a gas chromatography-mass spectromety test isn't of questionable accuracy). I-502 actually _improves_ the status quo for DUI law, contrary to the opposition claims.
9
What would have saved that poor man's life is the jail paying attention to the fact that he needed anti-asthma medication, which he brought with him. Yes, drug "crimes" should go away, but the reason he was in jail had nothing to do with his death.
10
You are all scared of nothing. Ive been pulled over 4 or 5 times under the influence of cannabis. And guess what? Nothing related to Marijuana happened to me. Theres a thing called eye drops. If your not slurring you speech or talking nonsense than an officer will have no reason to suspect you of being under the influence of anything. I-502 will set the wheels in motion for nation wide legalization. It will bring in money and create jobs. It will educate the people in our community from say the "reefer madness" era that cannabis is a relatively harmless substance that has been used for thousands of years. Nothing is perfect. People just need to not be stupid and they will stay out of jail.
11
It won't save lives. The young man in question would have been charged with a DUID as he most certainly would have tested positive for >5ng if he had smoked pot within THE LAST 30 DAYS. He may not have been charged with possesion under the new law but would now, under the new law, be charged with felony driving under the influence of drugs.People who voted for this "shot themselves in the foot".
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
All You Motherfuckers Complaining That aPodments Are Too Small at 200 Square Feet by Dominic Holden
-
SL Letter of the Day: Did You Think I Was Going To Tell You Not To Come Out? (PLUS: Help Free Kate!) by Dan Savage
-
Rightwing Anti-Gay French Activist Commits Suicide at Notre Dame Cathedral by Dan Savage
-
Spoiled Rotten: Star Trek Into Darkness by Paul Constant
-
There Are No Atheists In Foxholes by Dan Savage
-
America's Epidemic of Toddler-on-Toddler Gun Violence Continues by Goldy
-
Well-Regulated Beaverton Militia Accidentally Fires Shot into Neighbor's Bedroom by Goldy
-
Saint Genet Re-Creates "Shoot" by Brendan Kiley
-
Dutch Artist Turns Dead Cat into Remote-Controlled Helicopter by Bethany Jean Clement
-
Puggle: Love It or Shove It by Grant Brissey
Stranger Personals
The Stranger
RSSSeattle Art & Performance Quarterly
A complete guide to Seattle's current art, film, dance, and theater season.
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (11) RSS