T
The420Guy
Guest
Initiative 75 Won't Change Marijuana Laws, But It Could Change The Way Those
Laws Are Enforced.
In a state that has seen its share of bizarre lawmaking by initiative,
Seattle's upcoming I-75 looks pretty straightforward. The meat of "An Ordinance
to Establish a Sensible Marijuana Law Enforcement Policy in Seattle" is crammed
into its first paragraph of just 33 words: "The Seattle Police Department and
City Attorney's Office shall make the investigation, arrest and prosecution of
marijuana offenses, where the marijuana was intended for adult personal use,
the City's lowest law enforcement priority."
Simple, huh? And backed by public-spirited individuals and organizations, among
them Seattle City Council member Nick Licata, Democratic state Sen. Jeanne
Kohl-Welles, the League of Women Voters, and the American Civil Liberties
Union. Nor, despite their impeccably liberal credentials, do these backers base
their support on anyone's right to smoke pot. On the contrary, the Sensible
Seattle Coalition's plea for a "Yes" in the voters pamphlet for the Sept. 16
primary election calls for liberating police and prosecutors--"who are already
over-worked and deserve our strong support"--from the onerous burden of busting
and jailing marijuana smokers. "Shouldn't our police be allowed to focus on
protecting us against serious and violent crime?" the statement continues. "And
shouldn't our limited and expensive jail space be reserved for real criminals
who commit serious or violent crimes? If you agree, vote YES on I-75."
Perversely, some of the individuals I-75 is trying to unburden aren't
appreciative of the attempt. Three--City Attorney Tom Carr, King County
Prosecutor Norm Maleng, and King County Sheriff Dave Reichert--were ungrateful
enough to sign their names to the voters pamphlet statement against I-75. The
three point out there that "prosecution of adults for personal possession of
small amounts is . . . already near the bottom" priority for law enforcement.
What seems to concern them most is that apparently innocent phrase "where
marijuana was intended for adult personal use." There is nothing in the
language of the initiative to exclude felony levels of sales or growing: "I
will guarantee you that if this passes," Carr says, "the first time we
prosecute someone for growing, their lawyer is going to cite it in their
defense."
Surprisingly, at least one supporter of I-75 acknowledges that it will
challenge the status quo definition of criminality. "I think it's important
that we send a message here," says council member Licata. "This is a
contribution we can make to our national debate on marijuana policy, which in
countries like Canada has already moved far beyond." Opponents agree that I-75
pushes the issue farther than any other U.S. city has so far, but they
vigorously deny it would conserve law-enforcement resources. Carr points out
that nearly nine-tenths of the initiative deals with setting up an elaborate
reporting and assessment procedure: First it would create an 11-member
Marijuana Policy Review Panel (made up of five public officials, plus four
legal and drug experts and two "community members"); the review panel would
then establish rules for the police and city attorney to report on all
marijuana arrests and prosecutions and for processing the data through the
review panel semi-annually; and finally, the panel would submit a
"comprehensive written report" to the City Council in the fall of 2006. Subject
of the report? How well I-75 is working. In their voters pamphlet material,
supporters assert that this administrative apparatus will cost "NOTHING,"
because the police already collect the mandated data and the members of the
panel would serve without pay. Long-suffering taxpayers are best qualified to
judge the truth of that claim.
The initiative's opponents aren't above their own slippery tactical games. A
substantial percentage of their voters pamphlet statement is devoted to
familiar, undocumented assertions about the deleterious health effects and
addictive properties of marijuana. Whether scientifically founded or not, the
relevance of these arguments might seem questionable--until one recalls that
primary-vote turnout is heavily skewed toward elderly voters, who are much less
likely to have any reason to doubt the validity of the (unnamed) studies so
authoritatively cited.
Even those of us who consider ourselves better qualified to judge might spare a
kind thought for City Attorney Carr, though. If the initiative passes, his
office will be charged with supporting its provisions, while state laws--passed
by the Legislature last time Seattle looked like it was going its own way on
marijuana liberalization--specifically enjoin him from doing any such thing.
Maybe he won't have to try to play both offense and defense for very long. You
don't need a law degree to see that passing a law telling public officials how
to (or not to) enforce an existing law seems an odd use of the initiative
process. Backers of I-75 claim a precedent for their approach in a 1993 statute
authorizing the chief of police to disregard break-in alarms from locations
responsible for more than their share of dud calls. If that's all the law I-75
has going for it, be sure that if it passes, the issue will likely end up being
decided not by the voters but--like most other initiatives these days--by a
judge.
Pubdate: Wed, 13 Aug 2003
Source: Seattle Weekly (WA)
Copyright: 2003 Seattle Weekly
Laws Are Enforced.
In a state that has seen its share of bizarre lawmaking by initiative,
Seattle's upcoming I-75 looks pretty straightforward. The meat of "An Ordinance
to Establish a Sensible Marijuana Law Enforcement Policy in Seattle" is crammed
into its first paragraph of just 33 words: "The Seattle Police Department and
City Attorney's Office shall make the investigation, arrest and prosecution of
marijuana offenses, where the marijuana was intended for adult personal use,
the City's lowest law enforcement priority."
Simple, huh? And backed by public-spirited individuals and organizations, among
them Seattle City Council member Nick Licata, Democratic state Sen. Jeanne
Kohl-Welles, the League of Women Voters, and the American Civil Liberties
Union. Nor, despite their impeccably liberal credentials, do these backers base
their support on anyone's right to smoke pot. On the contrary, the Sensible
Seattle Coalition's plea for a "Yes" in the voters pamphlet for the Sept. 16
primary election calls for liberating police and prosecutors--"who are already
over-worked and deserve our strong support"--from the onerous burden of busting
and jailing marijuana smokers. "Shouldn't our police be allowed to focus on
protecting us against serious and violent crime?" the statement continues. "And
shouldn't our limited and expensive jail space be reserved for real criminals
who commit serious or violent crimes? If you agree, vote YES on I-75."
Perversely, some of the individuals I-75 is trying to unburden aren't
appreciative of the attempt. Three--City Attorney Tom Carr, King County
Prosecutor Norm Maleng, and King County Sheriff Dave Reichert--were ungrateful
enough to sign their names to the voters pamphlet statement against I-75. The
three point out there that "prosecution of adults for personal possession of
small amounts is . . . already near the bottom" priority for law enforcement.
What seems to concern them most is that apparently innocent phrase "where
marijuana was intended for adult personal use." There is nothing in the
language of the initiative to exclude felony levels of sales or growing: "I
will guarantee you that if this passes," Carr says, "the first time we
prosecute someone for growing, their lawyer is going to cite it in their
defense."
Surprisingly, at least one supporter of I-75 acknowledges that it will
challenge the status quo definition of criminality. "I think it's important
that we send a message here," says council member Licata. "This is a
contribution we can make to our national debate on marijuana policy, which in
countries like Canada has already moved far beyond." Opponents agree that I-75
pushes the issue farther than any other U.S. city has so far, but they
vigorously deny it would conserve law-enforcement resources. Carr points out
that nearly nine-tenths of the initiative deals with setting up an elaborate
reporting and assessment procedure: First it would create an 11-member
Marijuana Policy Review Panel (made up of five public officials, plus four
legal and drug experts and two "community members"); the review panel would
then establish rules for the police and city attorney to report on all
marijuana arrests and prosecutions and for processing the data through the
review panel semi-annually; and finally, the panel would submit a
"comprehensive written report" to the City Council in the fall of 2006. Subject
of the report? How well I-75 is working. In their voters pamphlet material,
supporters assert that this administrative apparatus will cost "NOTHING,"
because the police already collect the mandated data and the members of the
panel would serve without pay. Long-suffering taxpayers are best qualified to
judge the truth of that claim.
The initiative's opponents aren't above their own slippery tactical games. A
substantial percentage of their voters pamphlet statement is devoted to
familiar, undocumented assertions about the deleterious health effects and
addictive properties of marijuana. Whether scientifically founded or not, the
relevance of these arguments might seem questionable--until one recalls that
primary-vote turnout is heavily skewed toward elderly voters, who are much less
likely to have any reason to doubt the validity of the (unnamed) studies so
authoritatively cited.
Even those of us who consider ourselves better qualified to judge might spare a
kind thought for City Attorney Carr, though. If the initiative passes, his
office will be charged with supporting its provisions, while state laws--passed
by the Legislature last time Seattle looked like it was going its own way on
marijuana liberalization--specifically enjoin him from doing any such thing.
Maybe he won't have to try to play both offense and defense for very long. You
don't need a law degree to see that passing a law telling public officials how
to (or not to) enforce an existing law seems an odd use of the initiative
process. Backers of I-75 claim a precedent for their approach in a 1993 statute
authorizing the chief of police to disregard break-in alarms from locations
responsible for more than their share of dud calls. If that's all the law I-75
has going for it, be sure that if it passes, the issue will likely end up being
decided not by the voters but--like most other initiatives these days--by a
judge.
Pubdate: Wed, 13 Aug 2003
Source: Seattle Weekly (WA)
Copyright: 2003 Seattle Weekly
