Prohibition still fails; yes on I-502

4 free views left!

Prohibition still fails; yes on I-502

Wenatchee World Editorial Board

Saturday, October 20, 2012

There is little new in the Prohibition argument. This is it: The substance in question (alcohol, tobacco, marijuana) is so obviously harmful when abused, so destructive of family bonds, so detrimental to youthful potential, so disruptive to the fabric of sober society, that its possession and sale should be illegal. Preventing intoxication is a public good, so make criminals of the intoxicated.

It’s partly true. Abuse of these substances is harmful. We have all seen it with our own eyes. But how can the law stop it? Did Prohibition reduce alcohol abuse, make it less costly to society, protect youth, reduce crime and corruption? No. Prohibition of alcohol is widely considered one of the most ineffective and misguided efforts in our history, multiplying criminality, violence, corruption and widening alcohol use simultaneously. It worked so poorly and weighed on society so heavily the effort didn’t last much more than a dozen years before it was discarded as a failure.

We are beginning to see the prohibition of marijuana in the same light. We don’t relish the prospect of marijuana legal and available, but can’t see that its prohibition is accomplishing anything constructive. Marijuana use does not decline. Criminal activity is enhanced. The costs do not fall, but rise persistently. Marijuana has been illegal for so long we have forgotten what the goals are. If they are to reduce its use and limit the disruption of civil society, then it has been an expensive failure.

If voters approve Initiative 502, possession of small amounts of marijuana will be legal for those age 21 or older. It will be grown on state-licensed farms and sold in stand-alone state licensed stores, heavily regulated and taxed, not unlike alcohol. Driving under its influence will be illegal, as with alcohol.

If the law passes, what will be lost? First, the expense of enforcing a futile law — estimated at a collective $211 million statewide in a decade. Lost too will be at least some of the market and profits for the plentiful criminal drug traffickers. If we are fortunate, there will be less of their violence and mayhem. Will marijuana use increase? That’s doubtful. It’s use is already common. Will marijuana use increase among youths, where it is likely to do the most harm? We don’t know. We do know there is no shortage of marijuana among youths already. Under the new law it will still be illegal.

Arguments against the initiative vary in perspective. Much opposition comes from the supposed medical marijuana users, who interestingly find the initiative too restrictive. Many high-profile law enforcement officers support the initiative. Others have genuine concerns, based on experience and instinct, but the arguments weaken in extension. If prohibiting marijuana is so necessary why not criminalize alcohol, a substance arguably more powerful and destructive? We did, and it didn’t work. Prohibiting marijuana doesn’t work either. Voting yes on Initiative 502 is unlikely to make things worse, and just might save us money and anguish. Vote yes on Initiative 502.

This is the opinion of The Wenatchee World and its Editorial Board: Publisher Rufus Woods, Editor Cal FitzSimmons and Editorial Page Editor Tracy Warner.

» Recommend this story.

» 13 comments on this story

Want to comment on this story? All Wenatchee World members are invited to comment on stories, by using the form below. Please know that we at wenatcheeworld.com hope our site is useful, entertaining and civil. So we'll delete comments that are obscene, abusive or way off topic. We appreciate it when readers use the "suggest removal" button to flag inappropriate comments. For more about interacting with the site, see our Use Policy.

lonedog3 7 months ago

but it is still very much against the law on a federal level. All law enforcement would still have to arrest you based upon the federal law if your caught with dope. Unless of course the people think that our police officiers will just turn their heads.

notreallythough 7 months ago

State and local law enforcement do not have jurisdiction (power) to enforce federal laws; they can not arrest you for a violation of federal law, only state or local law. But even assuming that the feds pumped WA full of so many federal agents to make up for local law enforcement (which would be logistically impossible) its a strange argument to say that we should oppose this initiative because if it passes the status quo will continue, while if it doesn't pass the status quo will continue.

kyook 7 months ago

"State and local law enforcement do not have jurisdiction (power) to enforce federal laws; they can not arrest you for a violation of federal law, only state or local law."

This is news to me.

notreallythough 7 months ago

I suppose it is slightly more complicated than that...but not for purposes of this discussion. The relevant analysis is covered here with respect to immigration laws:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/R41423.pdf

Basically state law enforcement would appear to need express authorization to enforce the federal law at issue here, the controlled substances act. As far as I know there is no provision of WA state law or the federal controlled substances act authorizing state law enforcement to enforce the federal controlled substances act; either the state legislature or the Congress would need to pass such a provision; the chances of the WA legislature authorizing local police to arrest people for violations of federal drug laws after i-502 is passed would seem to be low; it would be against the express will of the people. On the other hand, Congress could authorize local police to enforce the CSA, but COULD NOT mandate that they enforce it.

Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898, 935 (1997).

What that leaves is the hypothetical scenario of Congress authorizing local law enforcement to enforce federal law, and local law enforcement than going on to do so despite local intent to the contrary, but EVEN IF THIS HAPPENED, which it hasn't, the feds still wouldn't be able to PROSECUTE all the people they arrested, they just don't have the resources.

Generally, see:

http://www.vanderbiltlawreview.org/articles/2009/10/Mikos-On-the-Limits-of-Supremacy-62-Vand.-L.-Rev.-1421-2009.pdf

lonedog3 7 months ago

so I can break federal law and a douglas county deptuy cannot arrest me?? wow cool!

highlander420 7 months ago

This is going to end up causing more problems than it is worth. It will result in medical cannabis patients being convicted for driving with cannabis in their systems. Active THC stays in the system for days, even weeks, just like inactive THC.

What you need to understand is that this will put cannabis DUIs into the PER SE law category where they do not need to prove impairment.

Not only that, but it may end up forcing the current collective garden model to become licensed recreational pot stores. That is not the intent of collectives.

Vote your conscience, however, read more information from both sides before making your choice.

Please check out nooni502.com for detailed information.

Our state legislature had this initiative in front of them for a year. They refused to pass it and instead left it for the voters. If this was such a a good bill, why did they reject it?

We need to legalize, but this is not the way. If passed, you can count on two things to happen without a doubt...

Per se DUI law WILL go into effect immediately.

TAX/REGULATE is way down the road, with the first sales of "legal" cannabis not to begin until at least 2015.

King County prosecutors and others have warned about having PER SE drugged driving laws because they will end up causing arrests and prosecutions on people who are not impaired, only guilty of being over an arbitrary number.

notreallythough 7 months ago

I think there are some bad points here, though this certainly would create a per se DUI/cannabis crime.

The legislature did not just "refuse to pass it," they also declined to propose an alternative as provided for in the state constitution, put simply they passed the buck, as they have a habit of doing:

http://sos.wa.gov/elections/initiatives/statistics_initleg.aspx

Such a failure to take action does not represent a thoughtful analysis of a proposition or a rejection, just abdication of their responsibility; put simply the legislature was too chicken, as they've previously been.

Second, while its all well and good to say that THC remains in your system for weeks (in fact this is only true for heavy users, and only revealed by urine, as opposed to blood, tests: http://www.ndcrc.org/content/marijuana-detection-window-determining-length-time-cannabinoids-will-remain-detectable-urine), they still need PROBABLE CAUSE to draw blood. Reasonable suspicion (which is not the language quoted in the statute you cite to) will only get you a temporary stop. Now, if a person is not actually impaired, how will an officer develop reasonable suspicion of impairment? Even if reasonable suspicion for another infraction or crime is developed, how will an officer develop PC for impairment if you're not actually impaired? You do mention that "a possession charge will now become a DUI," but that's only the case if you're dumb enough to be carrying pot on you IN THE CAR, AND draw over the THC limit (and there is in fact substantial disagreement concerning whether or not a sober person who smoked a day ago would have the requisite amount of THC in his BLOOD).

Also; federal law DOES NOT in fact recognize any defense of medical necessity against Controlled SUbstance Act charges. US v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative, 532 US 483 (2001).

highlander420 7 months ago

And considering that cannabis will still be a controlled substance on Schedule One in both state and federal laws, the TAX/REGULATE section could be thrown out completely by court challenges from the Federal Government.

Playing chicken with the Feds is a dangerous game. Why would you force your grower/processor/retailer to submit their fingerprints and info to the FBI when it is against Federal law?

At least medical cannabis laws have precedent in Federal Law (medical necessity). There is ZERO defense for recreational uses.

I-502 will not protect anyone from:

Getting busted for passing a joint... Losing custody of children for your drug use... Losing their jobs because they tested positive for cannabis... Losing your federal housing subsidies, like Section 8 housing...

Not only that, but if you remove adult penalties for possession, you then are left with 100% of police resources to focus on busting people UNDER 21.

Considering over 90% of possession charges come after vehicle stops, that possession charge will now become a DUI.

"The sworn report or report under a declaration authorized by RCW 9A.72.085 submitted by a law enforcement officer is prima facie evidence that the officer had reasonable grounds to believe the person had been driving or was in actual physical control of a motor vehicle within this state while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or drugs..."

Notice the lack of the word, "impaired".

Sworn report + blood test = automatic guilt

4th Amendment to the Constitution states, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

PROBABLE CAUSE is not reasonable grounds.

Reasonable suspicion means that the officer has sufficient knowledge to believe that criminal activity is at hand. This level of knowledge is less than that of probable cause, so reasonable suspicion is usually used to justify a brief frisk in a public area or a traffic stop at roadside. To possess either probable cause or reasonable suspicion, an officer must be able to cite specific articulable facts to warrant the intrusion. Items related to suspected criminal activity found in a search may be taken, or seized, by the officer.

PER SE laws on cannabis and driving are WRONG, unscientific and arbitrary.

We all want to see cannabis legalized, but we have to remove it from the controlled substances list.

Cannabis - Alcohol - Tobacco. One of these things is not like the other. Two of these are legal and both are NOT on the controlled substances list.

REMOVE from schedule one, then regulate responsibly.

Chuck 7 months ago

But I tend to look at this in much the same light as the "GMO labeling" idea in California's Prop 37:

Sure, the Feds don't like it and for sound financial reasons.

But let one state legislate against the Fed and others could very well follow-hopefully before the initial state was sufficiently made example in the Federal court system.

lonedog3 7 months ago

all told--the federal goverment needs to get out and stay out of the states rights to govern themselves.

douglas 7 months ago

I would be inclined to believe that the causal user would have no problem with Federal enforcement. I believe where the enforcement action would be taken would be against retailers and wholesalers (and possibly the state, if they license and tax the product) in the same manner that the Feds pretty much shut down the medical marijuana business in this state.

Chuck 7 months ago

I don't think that the Feds can borrow enough from China, nor print enough fiat currency to effectively finance the harassment of the "casual user."

Having said that, a fair amount of truly dirty dealings are financed by- and for- Uncle Sam with drug money, so there is certainly a vested interest in keeping that cash cow intact.

http://www.deepblacklies.co.uk/cia_drug_trafficking.htmhttp://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/fake_invasion.htm

http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc576.htm

So who knows? As crazy and off-the-wall as it may sound: legalization and/or decriminalization could very well be a good and logical first step towards discovering the truth about Roswell.

And yes: I can only imagine some of the comments that may or may not follow this one. LMAO