.
Feedback

Just Say Yes, Decriminalize Pot

The racial inequalities that result from the enforcement of our drug laws demand that we Decriminalize Pot.

 

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.

Newsletter & Alerts

Get the best stories each day and important breaking news

Subscribe

Not from Sammamish-Issaquah Patch? Find your Local Patch »

Ken James September 14, 2012 at 02:23 am
You’ve got to love this logic… and from a lawyer!
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.
Bob McCoy September 14, 2012 at 07:12 pm
Ken, did Trent bully you so badly on the playground, or keep you off the Kickball Team, that you have a compulsion to get even by any means?
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..
Ken James September 15, 2012 at 10:29 am
There may be some points of reasonable debate on this issue, but to say that legalizing marijuana will not increase use of marijuana is dishonest and reflects poorly on those who argue for legalizing.
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.
Jeanne Gustafson (Editor) September 15, 2012 at 11:22 am
I can see your points, Ken. What do you think about the huge cost of incarceration for marijuana crimes? It kind of bothers me that prisons are described as a "growth industry."
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."
Jeanne Gustafson (Editor) September 15, 2012 at 11:29 am
And what I intended to suggest, was that money spent to incarcerate illegal users might better be spent on education and treatment as people may be less likely to hide their use of the drug if incarceration is less of an issue.
Ken James September 16, 2012 at 01:54 am
These discussions always seem to take a tangent that makes it difficult to find the best answer. When we suggest that we could save money by decriminalizing an activity without looking at the other issues, it sounds hollow to me. If we decriminalize any activity, certainly we can point to a savings in terms of prosecution and potential incarceration, but that alone doesn't answer the core question.
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.
Jeanne Gustafson (Editor) September 16, 2012 at 03:05 am
I agree that there is no easy answer, Ken. There are plenty of substances, both legal and illegal, that people with metal illnesses use to self-medicate, though that does not nullify your arguments.
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.
Bob McCoy September 16, 2012 at 01:57 pm
Ken, your nanny-state attitude toward recreational drugs--with punishment for those that pick differently from the legal one that has the highest societal cost--is baffling. Your introduction of the word 'increase' into the argument was the first and only use of it in the current discussion. Here is what we do know: court-directed privatized confinement leads to an increase in incarceration, independent of actual crime: https://www.google.com/search?q=private+prison+judge+bribe That you, or someone you know, has failed because of, or succeeded in spite of, marijuana is anecdotal, and should be less a concern than the total cost to our society of allowing puritanical concepts to over-rule reason. Can you consider that with marijuana legal, and controlled by the state, there would be no advantage to profit-seeking pushers to recruit users, and that people who would not normally seek a recreational high might not be introduced to the herb, just as the referenced articles might indicate that without a profit motive, some people may not have been introduced to the jail/prison system? The "race card" thrust in Kent's blog also addressed a societal cost that is unfairly borne by one segment, and as indicated by Jeanne's reference has a high personal cost to those individuals and to society through the loss of their contributions. What about the vulnerability of these people?
You cite "well-documented" facts, how about a few references to peer-reviewed research articles?
Ken James September 16, 2012 at 06:33 pm
I realize that some like to consider 'over simplification' the notion that locking up criminals actually reduces crime, but that is actually what happens. From any analysis of the numbers and history, criminals tend to stay criminals and when they are out in the community, they victimize society. If someone finds a way to break that trend, I'm all for rethinking the idea... but until then, as crude and simple an idea as it is... it works. http://nij.gov/topics/corrections/recidivism/welcome.htm
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
Ken James September 16, 2012 at 06:44 pm
By the way, if we make marijuana legal, that does not reduce the number of drug peddlers and their associated crimes. Drug peddlers aren't in the 'marijuana' business or the 'cocaine' business; they are in the business of selling whatever is illegal to sell. Unless you are advocating for the legalization of ALL drugs, making marijuana legal merely means that they will sell a different illegal substance or item. This is linked to the discussion on recidivism... people who sell illegal 'stuff' will continue to do so... they just change their inventory to align with the code. Did you really think that those currently selling marijuana will become productive members of society because of this change? Really?
Ken James September 16, 2012 at 06:53 pm
To complete the circle, when Trent described the link between racial discrimination and marijuana law, I suggested that he should address the core issue in the justice system rather than pretending that legalizing marijuana would have a positive impact on this problem. He too is apparently making the assumption that by removing prohibition of marijuana, those victims of discrimination will become law abiding citizens and immune from the descrimination he described. Whatever problems currently exist regarding discrimination will remain regardless of the law governing marijuana.
When you see arguments like that, you know the position is very weak.
Jeanne Gustafson (Editor) September 17, 2012 at 12:22 pm
I like your link to the National Institute of Justice, Ken. If you look at the page on Drug Courts, you'll see that they reduce recidivism of drug crime offenders by emphasizing treatment over incarceration, and thereby reduce costs. http://nij.gov/nij/topics/courts/drug-courts/work.htm
Ken James September 17, 2012 at 04:44 pm
I agee that treatment can be an effective alternative for drug USERS. That is a differnent class of 'criminal' than a drug reseller. In fact, the more 'successful' drug pushers are not users... they see every day the impact of drug use and they don't want that for themselves.
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 McCoy September 18, 2012 at 11:39 am
Wow, Ken, Just when I think that you've made a cogent argument, you pull out the splatter-gun and let fly. "Bob, do you really continue to insist that marijuana use is not harmful to the well-being of many people?" Please, Ken, quote a single instance of insistence by me; I won't tax you for evidence of a pattern.
"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.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors. Write a new post... What's up? Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell something
Jenny Manning (Editor) June 11, 2013 at 10:32 am
Yikes! I had an encounter on Tiger Mountain with what I think was a cougar on June 9. We weren'tRead More close enough to see it (thank goodness) but could hear it, and what sounded like another animal dying/being eaten. This was about 3:30 p.m. a couple miles up the trail from Issaquah High School.
Bob McCoy June 12, 2013 at 07:39 am
Jenny Manning, this area lies on the WUI, Wildland-Urban Interface, and we have bears, cougars,Read More bobcats, and other of nature's fauna. Your comment indicates that you have not read my Patch blogs trying to dispel myths and fears of our local predators, and that you have little understanding of our biggest cat, the cougar. I would also venture that you have not availed yourself of the many outreach events held in this area regarding our wildlife. To state you had an "encounter" when you did not even have a 'sighting' is a misuse of clearly defined terminology for wildlife interactions. You might avail yourself of Western Wildlife Outreach's excellent materials regarding cougars and other apex carnivores in the Northwest: http://westernwildlife.org/cougar-outreach-project/cougar-safety/ To have heard "something" might well have been an animal being eaten, but to assume a cougar was having dinner, and the cougar was announcing it to the world, is a bit of a stretch. What, exactly, is the sound made by a cougar while killing a meal? As a stalk and pounce predator, mountain lions are silent in their approach. They efficiently kill, and unless taking down larger prey such as an elk, the prey's struggle is usually short, if any at all. Also, to make sounds while eating is to attract attention, and attention is what cougars avoid. Perhaps, though, you heard a cougar caterwauling? That is a call to attract a mate, one of the few times cougars do not want to avoid attention. Welcome to the Pacific Northwest. Your best way to be safe in our outdoors is to be knowledgeable about our wildlife, and to carry Bear Spray, pretty much in that order.
Ben Stieglitz June 18, 2013 at 02:20 pm
Yes, bears, possums, deer, rabbits, coyotes, and raccoons call Issaquah their homes (I have yet toRead More see a Cougar in person). They are a welcome sight and seem to weave in and out of peoples back yards quite quickly and quietly. I wouldn't have even know there were bears in my yard if it wasn't for a IR security camera I had installed a while back. They are quite peaceful. The bears that show up in our yard, in my experience, are quite scared of people and don't want anything to do with them. They just smell the garbage and want an easy snack. If you keep the garbage area clean and secure you will have no issues other than a pass by and on to the next yard. In my opinion they are a special treat to living in this area and I wouldn't want it any other way. Hope that helps.
Jenny Manning (Editor) June 7, 2013 at 01:50 pm
Thanks for sharing this shot, David. How to you get to Duthie bike park? Looks like fun!
David V June 7, 2013 at 02:09 pm
Back side of the Samm Plateau near my Trossachs neighborhood. Folks come from all over to ride here.Read More http://www.kingcounty.gov/recreation/parks/trails/backcountry/duthiehill.aspx
David V June 7, 2013 at 02:11 pm
It'd be awesome if web links were automatically clickable on the patch. Wish list item:)
David V June 1, 2013 at 11:51 am
Thx Jenny! Definitely check out the Beaver Lake Tri in August on the Sammamish Plateau. A greatRead More tradition and a cool wooded setting for a hot August Tri:)
Kendall Watson (Editor) June 2, 2013 at 04:50 pm
Awesome! Thanks again for generously sharing your sharp photo skills on Sammamish-Issaquah Patch!
David V June 3, 2013 at 10:09 am
Always fun to post on the Patch. Keep up the great work you guys! Great local platform
Trevor in Autismland by Leslie Nan Moon
Jenny Manning (Editor) June 1, 2013 at 11:38 am
What a great idea for an exhibit. Would you be interested in partnering with us to make sure moreRead More people can see it once you've decided on which submissions you'll show? I think it'd be really neat to upload images of the artwork and the stories via our blogging platform. Please let me know if you're interested!
Anne Randall June 1, 2013 at 11:58 am
Absolutely, yes! I did a blog last year on the stories of the artists of the Sammamish Arts FairRead More (still in your archives, called Makers Among Us, under my name), and this would be a perfect way to refresh and continue the blog. I worked with Jeanne Gustafson to get started and she was most helpful. I will alert the curator of the show, and we'll plan on it. We would love to link to and from the artEAST website as well to get come viewers to share. If you have other suggestions, please let me know! Thanks, Anne Randall