THIS NOVEMBER Washington residents will vote on Initiative 502, which, if passed, would decriminalize marijuana. I-502 will appear on Washington’s November 6 ballot like this:
“This measure would license and regulate marijuana production, distribution, and possession for persons over twenty-one; remove state-law criminal and civil penalties for activities that it authorizes; tax marijuana sales; and earmark marijuana-related revenues.”
Washington’s Secretary of State, in approving I-502 for the ballot, described the initiative as a law “decriminalizing marijuana and regulating it and taxing it much like liquor.” Marijuana would not be “legalized” under I-502 as some believe. Neither would it repeal any laws. Instead, the initiative would decriminalize marijuana and permit the State to generate needed tax revenue from its sale.
Currently, Washington and federal law (as well as many city ordinances) prohibit and criminalize marijuana in almost every respect. Washington’s limited exception – the Medical Use of Marijuana Act – permits a licensed physician to recommend, but not prescribe, marijuana to treat pain and complications related to severe diseases, including cancer.
Yet under I-502, unlicensed and non-medical related marijuana possession and growth would remain illegal; marijuana would remain a Schedule 1 drug alongside hallucinogenic substances, opiates and stimulants. The initiative would simply permit the possession of up to one ounce of dried marijuana, or seventy-two ounces of liquids that contain marijuana, or one pound of a solid substance that contains marijuana (think “baked-goods”) for adults who are at least twenty-one years old.
Our nation is no stranger to rules and regulations governing marijuana. Jamestown Colonial law actually mandated that all settlers grow hemp – a low tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) form of marijuana – on their properties. Hemp was, in fact, one of George Washington’s three primary crops. And since those colonial days, our nation’s original puritanical leanings have persuaded people that criminalizing marijuana is best. But now, as our progressive attitudes have changed, there is one sufficient reason – a human rights reason – to embrace a less prudish course and decriminalize pot; it’s time to vote Yes for I-502.
To put it bluntly, our current effort to enforce what are supposed to be our race-neutral drug laws is waged primarily against black Americans. According to a recent Stanford Law & Policy Review article, “Relative to their numbers in the general population and among drug offenders, black Americans are disproportionately arrested, convicted, and incarcerated on drug charges.” (The article is Race, Drugs, and Law Enforcement in the United States, published in the June 19, 2009 issue of the Stanford Law and Policy Review.)
But this discriminatory enforcement does not track actual drug use: citing comprehensive studies, that same article points out that it is estimated “that 111,774,000 people in the United States age twelve or older have used illicit drugs during their lifetime, of whom 82,587,000 are white and 12,477,000 are black.”
Equal treatment of all people – what is likely our most cherished democratic value – has been flagrantly abused – or at least disgracefully forgotten – when it comes to enforcing our drug laws. Decriminalizing marijuana is one step we can take toward achieving a better, less discriminatory, society.
Despite the inequality created by our drug law enforcement, and despite the benefits that would arise from decriminalizing marijuana, there is a major problem with I-502. Even if the initiative passes, it is unlikely that Washingtonians would, or even could, actually enjoy the benefits of income generated from taxing marijuana. The initiative would permit the imposition of a 25 percent sales tax, 40 percent of which would be earmarked for spending on substance-abuse prevention, research, healthcare and education. It would also permit the establishment of private state-regulated marijuana-only supply stores. But establishing these storefronts, and accepting this tax revenue, would likely violate the U.S. Constitution and more specifically its Supremacy Clause.
Under the Supremacy Clause, when a state law conflicts with federal law – what is known as “preemption” – the federal law controls. Enforcing a state-created marijuana regulation system would ultimately violate federal law. For example, according to Alison Holcomb, co-author of the initiative, “depositing sales tax in a bank would constitute money laundering.” (Governor Gregoire, and both gubernatorial candidates Jay Inslee and Rob McKenna have opposed I-502 for this preemption reason.)
This consequence, however, is not enough reason to reject I-502. History is not void of instances in which state law has prompted change at the federal level. Prohibition, for example, was discarded by many states, Washington included, before the 21st Amendment to our U.S. Constitution was adopted. Passing I-502 now would serve the dual purpose of catalyzing federal change as well as priming Washington to capitalize off marijuana generated tax revenue (which our State badly needs) once the drug is federally legalized.
Let’s get to the point: just say yes, and vote to decriminalize marijuana this November.
____________________________________________________________
Trent Latta is an attorney and Kirkland resident. He can be contacted at TrentLatta@gmail.com.
Trent quotes an article about discrimination in the justice system: “black Americans are disproportionately arrested, convicted, and incarcerated on drug charges” He might go on to describe ways to alleviate this perceived injustice by correcting the practices that he suggests create the unjust and racist activity. Instead, he uses this issue as an argument to decriminalize the behavior. Using this scholarly logic, we should expect his next article to advocate legalizing murder. http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrtable_03.html Perhaps he should avoid playing the race card and argue on the merits of the law.
I believe that Trent's article lists additional benefits to decriminalization. In fact, your beef was gored by the Secretary of State's office, as they are the ones that write the ballot titles and summaries. By your logic, simple substitution and adjustment leads to: "This measure would license and regulate murder, distribution, and numbers for persons over twenty-one; remove state-law criminal and civil penalties for activities that it authorizes; tax murders; and earmark murder-related revenues." A geek trying to follow your logic might conclude that you are a bot running on the NonSequiturSoft operating system based on the TrollMor platform..
Once legal, the cost will be lower and the strength will almost certainly be higher. Those people who currently can’t often afford to use marijuana, will have more opportunity once the cost is lower. What is the impact of excessive use of marijuana on the following classes of people; those with limited mental capability, those with psychosis, those at the lower end of the socio-economic scale? Will legalizing marijuana; lowering cost and improving availability, affect these people positively or negatively? Will they be in better health? Will they be better able to climb out of poverty? I know the answer to these questions both from personal observations as well as bona fide medical studies. Raising tax revenue in this manner is one of the most insidious schemes we have ever contemplated…. We should vote NO on the initiative which will cost more money and human misery than we will ever recover from taxation.
This is from DailyFinance.com, which says the prison rate is growing 5 percent a year, though crime is actually declining: "The FBI reported in September 2011 that 853,000 people were arrested for marijuana-related violations in 2010. Of the total, 750,000 were for simple possession, 103,000 were arrested for the sale or manufacture of marijuana."
As I mentioned in my comments above, there is a real cost in terms of lost human potential that is difficult to calculate. There are also well-documented mental healh issues that have both a "cost" component as well as a well-being component. In a earlier exchange, several supporters of decriminalization said that they used marijuana regularly and over a long period of time and were not negatively impacted. While I don't dispute some of those reports, does anyone dispute that for some people use of marijuana has significant negative potential? It seems a little selfish to argue that we should take steps to improve availability knowing that there are significant risks to the most vulnerable. Are there really too few ways to achieve a recreational high? Re: Prisions as a Growth Industry -- You said "prison rate is growing... crime is declining" Yes, if you lock up more of the criminals, crime will decline. Works every time.
I will challenge your logic on the incarceration/crime comment, though, as I believe it may oversimplify the factors involved. Again, not that I claim to have the answers, but I can point people to a more in-depth discussion of that issue at reason.com http://reason.com/archives/2011/06/08/prison-math. Reason.com bills itself as an "editorially independent publication of the Reason Foundation, a national, non-profit research and educational organization." I make no claims to the political neutrality of its posts, though it appears to be fact-based info there.
You cite "well-documented" facts, how about a few references to peer-reviewed research articles?
Bob, do you really continue to insist that marijuana use is not harmful to the well-being of many people? I think you must have lead a sheltered life. Spend a few days in a ghetto and you'll be convinced that legalization of more drugs will not have a postive impact. Bob, some studies for you to criticize: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21300939 http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=000220 http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000884
When you see arguments like that, you know the position is very weak.
My discussion about the falacy of the claim that legalizing marijuana will reduce crime and therefore the cost of prosecution and incarseration is still valid. You can't impact the recidivism rate with drug treatment if the offender is not a drug user. Incarseration is, however, a temporary cure for the crime of drug peddling. Again, the premise that you can reduce crime by making that which is illegal, suddenly 'legal' does not take into account the fact that those bent on making their living in the 'black market' will merely switch to a different illegal product. Drugs, guns, stolen property... How far do we want to go with this decriminalization idea to reduce crime?
"Bob, some studies for you to criticize." You should apply your critical assessment to any studies before presenting them as supporting a position. Ken, it seems like you are on both sides of the argument, raising straw men to burn. In the Goodman thread, referenced by you in this thread, I wrote "Prohibition illustrated the business model of creating a lucrative, illegal market, waiting until the criminal elements had earned enough that they could have their own armies and branch out into other criminal activities." That addresses the business side, which you conflate in your arguments with the users’ side. Are you suggesting that all consumers of prohibited alcohol were criminals, and continued their life of crime post-prohibition? Apparently, you have high emotional investment in this issue. Please, Ken, take some time, organize your arguments, and post a blog piece to Patch. That will serve your position better than the splatter of your comments.