Prosecutors Object To War On Weed
The prosecution objects. That's one way to put it, at any rate.
Two news stories from the Pacific Northwest today pose an interesting question: are prosecutors beginning to get fed up with the War On Weed? The two stories are completely unrelated, I should mention -- one is about a current prosecutor at the local level, and one is about a former federal prosecutor making a noteworthy endorsement. Neither has anything to do with the other, but both show some common sense being applied in refreshing ways. It's too early to call it a trend (even a regional one), but it certainly is a step in the right direction, at the very least.
First, the local story, from the Huffington Post:
Seattle's elected prosecutor said Monday he's dropping all tickets issued for the public use of marijuana through the first seven months of this year, because most of them were issued by a single police officer who disagrees with the legal pot law.
In a briefing to the City Council on Monday, City Attorney Pete Holmes says he is moving to dismiss approximately 100 tickets issued by the Seattle Police Department between Jan. 1 and July 31. His office also said it would be seeking a refund for 22 people who have already paid their $27 ticket.
One state to the south, a former federal prosecutor for Oregon has thrown her support behind a ballot initiative to legalize recreational marijuana for adults in the state. Kris Olson, who "served as Oregon's chief federal prosecutor during the Clinton administration" made the news by joining House member Earl Blumenauer and a former Oregon Supreme Court justice in publicly supporting the ballot measure:
"I enforced our marijuana laws, and they don't work," Olson said in a statement announcing her endorsement.
"Filling our courts and jails has failed to reduce marijuana use, and drug cartels are pocketing all the profits," she said, citing federal statistics that show about one in 14 Oregon arrests is for marijuana possession.
In the first instance, this was nothing short of a prosecutor using his "prosecutorial discretion" to avoid wasting a lot of time in the courts, and (more importantly) to rein in one police officer who was obviously on a vendetta against the voters for passing a law he did not personally approve of.
One single police officer was responsible for eight out of ten of all tickets issued in Seattle for public consumption of marijuana during the first half of this year. The other twenty percent were written by the entire rest of the police force, to put this another way. This officer wrote on one ticket he considered the new legalization law "silly." While the officer has been reassigned new duties after this came to light, there are a lot of folks with cases still in the legal system as a result of his actions.
In Washington state, of course, recreational marijuana use is legal. The voters approved this change in state law, and the prosecutor's actions quite obviously reflect the will of the people. But it didn't have to happen this way -- prosecutors in general are pretty much "tough on crime" types of people, and if this particular prosecutor had agreed with the cop's way of thinking, then these cases would have continued to clog the legal system all the way to the bitter end (all 27 dollars of it). This prosecutor, however, objected to that scenario, and applied some common sense. He's even going the extra mile and trying to refund fines already paid. That is a truly commendable action -- once again, reflecting the will of the voters in legal reality.
The second news item doesn't deal with actual legal cases, and comes from a prosecutor who no longer works for the federal Department of Justice. Still, this is a stunning development. Federal prosecutors, after all, are not bound by any state law and therefore can apply federal law (where marijuana is still the most illegal of all drugs) without even having to weigh in on state politics. Believe it or not, there are some extremely zealous federal prosecutors all up and down the West Coast who are fighting tooth and nail against any state legalization efforts in unprecedented and creative ways. So hearing even a former prosecutor bluntly refute the entire purpose (and effectiveness) of the federal War On Weed is a welcome development indeed.
The language she used is a pretty strong condemnation of federal laws she upheld while in office: "I enforced our marijuana laws, and they don't work." Prosecutors are practical people who deal with the real-world aftermath of arresting marijuana users, so the argument used is not a moral one ("locking up marijuana users is wrong") or one of racial equality ("black and brown people are treated differently by the court system") or even a political one ("the public's mood has shifted"). Instead, it is a view from the front lines of the drug war which relies on personal experience in applying federal laws and the relative effectiveness of carrying out this job: "I enforced our marijuana laws, and they don't work."
Of all the pro-legalization arguments, this could perhaps be the strongest one. The laws don't work. They don't have the intended effect (the feds have been fighting the War On Weed for almost a century now, with precious little to show for it), and in fact they have severe unintended consequences ("drug cartels are pocketing all the profits"), therefore mindlessly continuing on the same course is nothing short of madness.
Kris Olson is not the first law enforcement officer to have this revelation and begin publicly trying to change the situation. An entire organization already exists ("Law Enforcement Against Prohibition" or "LEAP") for members of the law enforcement community (past and present) to advocate for marijuana legal reform. Many members are former cops who saw firsthand how pointless the entire War On Weed truly was, throughout their careers. Now freed of the prospect of ending their career over a public statement, many are speaking out on the subject. Their message is a simple one: Prohibition (of alcohol) didn't work, and prohibition of marijuana isn't working either.
Kris Olson is to be commended for raising her own prosecutorial objection, and for throwing her public support behind a ballot measure in the state where she used to uphold federal law. This personal connection to the state ballot measure might convince a few voters -- even "tough on crime" types -- that all the rest of the arguments aside, the law needs changing because it doesn't work. It does nothing short of waste time for the entire judicial system for something which shouldn't even be illegal in the first place.
The Oregon ballot measure race may be close. The year Washington and Colorado legalized recreational marijuana, Oregon had a similar (but badly-written) initiative on its ballot. It failed. This time around the effort is a lot more serious, but reliable polling on the subject is notoriously hard to do, so the vote might be very close in November.
Pro-legalization groups will be very closely watching the vote this year in Oregon (and in Alaska and Washington DC), so assumably they'll also be closely watching the impact of Olson's simple "the laws don't work" message. Olson's message is a powerful one because it could reach voters not generally open to other pro-legalization arguments (if you're a "law-n-order" type of voter, a former federal prosecutor's opinion should carry some weight, in other words). Perhaps more prosecutors -- both state and federal, both current and former -- can be enlisted in this movement. As I said, it is far too early to call this any sort of trend, but it certainly is a development worth taking note of. To end on the legal theme we began on: perhaps the voters will "sustain" these prosecutors' objections.
-- Chris Weigant
Cross-posted at The Huffington Post
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
It's easy to understand why the fuzz are resentful. Watching their racket crumble must be scary.
"As Congress debated the escalation of airstrikes against Islamic extremists, Rep. Lloyd Doggett, D-Texas, digressed to inveigh against “the wholly unnecessary Bush-Cheney invasion of Iraq,” a bell that was rung 11 & 1/2 years ago and can’t be un-rung now." - Frank Bruni, NYT (lol btw)
FTP suggestion for this week: It's Bush's fault.
We must be like the GR on the Leftovers. The GOP wants to forget. We can't allow that to happen.
What's up with the comments* in Schrödinger’s box? The counter says 8, but I only see 4.
* None of my breadcrumbs are missing.
It's easy to understand why the fuzz are resentful. Watching their racket crumble must be scary.
Did you honestly say "the fuzz"??
The 60s called...
They have about a trillion brain cells that they say are yours....
Michale
FTP suggestion for this week: It's Bush's fault.
Whatever Democrats have to tell themselves to look in a mirror and get up in the morning, I guess....
REAL leaders take responsibility for their frak-ups..
Lusers just blame someone else.. ANYONE else...
Michale
What's up with the comments* in Schrödinger’s box? The counter says 8, but I only see 4.
It's due to a peculiarity of tweets and twits.... When someone tweet's a commentary it counts it as a comment...
... or something like that..
Michale
Real leaders blame Obama.
:)
-David
BTW, where was that liberal media on the climate change march? If 300,000 conservatives marched for anything they'd declare it the rapture.
Real leaders blame Obama.
No.. REAL leaders TAKE the blame, TAKE responsibility...
BTW, where was that liberal media on the climate change march? If 300,000 conservatives marched for anything they'd declare it the rapture.
Well, I DID read something about it..
About how all these EARTH FIRST morons were a bunch of slobs and left a buttload of litter and crap all around...
Hypocrites...
Who knew that GREENs actually don't give a rat's ass about the planet, eh?? :D
Michale
Looks like Obama is invading Syria now...
And of course, the Anti-War Hysterical Left is out in full force, protesting again....
Oh wait... They're not....
Funny how that is, iddn't it?? :D
Michale
https://twitter.com/ClimateNewsCA/status/513768720712605696
Yea... They REALLY care about the planet...
Wonder how many thousands of tons of carbon was dumped in the air by these moronic hypocrites for their Climate Change parade???
Climate Change Parade.... How utterly stoopid..
What's next???
Earth Rotation Parade???
Sun Rises In The East Parade???
Sun Rises In The West Parade???
Morons...
Michale
"Wonder how many thousands of tons of carbon was dumped in the air by these moronic hypocrites for their Climate Change parade???"
What's YOUR guesstimate? From the fossil fuel reservoir, and compared to what other activities they might have engaged in on a comparable day?
Answer those questions and you're making a useful point, otherwise it's just diversionary snark. Considering the above, be careful about casually throwing the term moron about..
What's YOUR guesstimate? From the fossil fuel reservoir, and compared to what other activities they might have engaged in on a comparable day?
I am referring to all the fuel that was expended by private planes, private automobiles, limos and all the other modes of transport used by celebritities and politicians and every day joes to attend the event..
It's like Al Gore traveling around the world in his private planes and convoys of large SUVs, lecturing everyone about THEIR carbon footprint..
You DO realize what would happen if all the CO2 on the planet was eliminated, right??? :D
This is where you throw out that total BS statement about 97% of scientists agreeing that humans cause Climate Change... :D
Go on.. I dare ya.. I double dog dare ya... :D
Considering the above, be careful about casually throwing the term moron about..
Yea, I noticed the typo... Mea Culpa... :D
Michale
http://www.latimes.com/science/la-sci-pacific-warming-20140923-story.html
THE CLIMATE IS CHANGING - WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE!
The scientific consensus says so - here are all my sources:
1970 - Colder Winters Held Dawn of New Ice Age - Scientists See Ice Age In the Future (The Washington Post, January 11, 1970)
1970 - Is Mankind Manufacturing a New Ice Age for Itself? (L.A. Times, January 15, 1970)
1970 - New Ice Age May Descend On Man (Sumter Daily Item, January 26, 1970)
1970 - Pollution Prospect A Chilling One (Owosso Argus-Press, January 26, 1970)
1970 - Pollution's 2-way 'Freeze' On Society (Middlesboro Daily News, January 28, 1970)
1970 - Cold Facts About Pollution (The Southeast Missourian, January 29, 1970)
1970 - Pollution Could Cause Ice Age, Agency Reports (St. Petersburg Times, March 4, 1970)
1970 - Scientist predicts a new ice age by 21st century (Boston Globe, April 16, 1970)
1970 - Pollution Called Ice Age Threat (St. Petersburg Times, June 26, 1970)
1970 - Dirt Will Bring New Ice Age (The Sydney Morning Herald, October 19, 1970)
1971 - Ice Age Refugee Dies Underground (The Montreal Gazette, Febuary 17, 1971)
1971 - Pollution Might Lead To Another Ice Age (Schenectady Gazette, March 22, 1971)
1971 - Pollution May Bring Ice Age - Scientist Rites Risk (The Windsor Star, March 23, 1971)
1971 - U.S. Scientist Sees New Ice Age Coming (The Washington Post, July 9, 1971)
1971 - Ice Age Around the Corner (Chicago Tribune, July 10, 1971)
1971 - New Ice Age Coming - It's Already Getting Colder (L.A. Times, October 24, 1971)
1971 - Another Ice Age? Pollution Blocking Sunlight (The Day, November 1, 1971)
1971 - Air Pollution Could Bring An Ice Age (Harlan Daily Enterprise, November 4, 1971)
1972 - Air pollution may cause ice age (Free-Lance Star, February 3, 1972)
1972 - Scientist Says New ice Age Coming (The Ledger, February 13, 1972)
1972 - Ice Age Cometh For Dicey Times (The Sun, May 29, 1972)
1972 - There's a new Ice Age coming! (The Windsor Star, September 9, 1972)
1972 - Scientist predicts new ice age (Free-Lance Star, September 11, 1972)
1972 - British Expert on Climate Change Says New Ice Age Creeping Over Northern Hemisphere (Lewiston Evening Journal, September 11, 1972)
1972 - Climate Seen Cooling For Return Of Ice Age (Portsmouth Times, ?September 11, 1972?)
1972 - New Ice Age Slipping Over North (Press-Courier, September 11, 1972)
1972 - Ice Age Begins A New Assault In North (The Age, September 12, 1972)
1972 - Weather To Get Colder (Montreal Gazette, ?September 12, 1972?)
1972 - British climate expert predicts new Ice Age (The Christian Science Monitor, September 23, 1972)
1972 - Scientist Sees Chilling Signs of New Ice Age (L.A. Times, September 24, 1972)
1972 - Science: Another Ice Age? (Time Magazine, November 13, 1972)
1972 - Geologist at Case Traces Long Winters - Sees Ice Age in 20 Years (Youngstown Vindicator, December 13, 1972)
1972 - Ice Age On Its Way, Scientist Says (Toledo Blade, December 13, 1972)
1972 - Ice Age Predicted In About 200 Years (The Portsmouth Times, December 14, 1972)
I could go on and on, but why bother??
It's impossible to talk people out of their religion...
Michale
I could go on and on, but why bother??
What? Your mouse finger got tired in the middle of your cut and paste job?
Here [American Meteorological Society] is a thorough debunking of your cooling consensus BS. Warming papers of the time out numbered cooling papers about 6 to 1...
An advocate of the HUMAN CAUSED GLOBAL WARMING (But there ain't any relative warming) "debunking" the science that calls the theory into question..
WOW.. What are the odds..
Iddn't it funny how you are only interested in the debunking that supports your agenda..
Regardless, the simple fact is, those scientists back in the 70s were wrong..
What makes you think the scientists today are any different??
50 years from now, it's entirely likely that the scientists of today will be ridiculed just as people today ridicule the scientists of the 70s...
This is when you come back with that totally BS claim that "97% of all scientists agree that humans are responsible for Climate Change"...
Com'on... Be consistent at least.. :D
Michale
M-12
You DO realize what would happen if all the CO2 on the planet was eliminated, right??? :D
No, because I haven't a clue by what you mean by "eliminated" or "planet." By eliminated do you mean transported from the atmosphere to biosphere, hydrosphere or lithosphere? Or do you mean transformed into different chemicals but still in the atmosphere? Or both? Seriously, and with all due respect, you seem way, way way out of your league on this topic.
M-13
"I could go on and on, but why bother??"
I agree. Not a peer reviewed journal in the lot of 'em.
"If I wanted smoke blown up my ass, I'd be at home with a pack of cigarettes and a short length of hose." - Detective Don Brodka, Try-N-Save security team.
Cutting edge science is inherently elitist. Emerging schools of scientific thought get sorted out in peer reviewed journals, not in the popular press. Peer reviewed literature is tough going. You may have to travel to a library to read it. The text is turgid, terminology is often arcane, and there's lots of math, stats and graphs. It's punctuated with little numbers that need to be cross referenced against other peer reviewed sources.
Even the best of the popular science reporting is minor league stuff. What you are citing is T-ball, or maybe scientific gossip is a better analogy. Neither is what you want to base an informed opinion upon.
"It's impossible to talk people out of their religion..."
Wow, that's going to really upset evangelists!
Seriously, science and religion are philosophically very different. Religion stresses faith, revelation and sacred tradition. Science stresses reasoning, body of evidence and empiricism. Climate change science is firmly scientific, not religious.
Science changes, and fairly rapidly. Religion schools of thought are much more conservative.
M-12
I never hold typos against someone...especially if they are trying to right a repyl using a tbalet without a physical kybroad.
I never hold typos against someone...especially if they are trying to right a repyl using a tbalet without a physical kybroad.
Touche...
But, since I have you here, I would ask you to address one simple point..
If the United States gave in and did EVERYTHING that the environmental loonies wanted us to do. Every point, every action, every THING that the loonies wanted the US to do, the US did..
Guess what?? It won't mean a damn thing to Human Caused Global Warming (If There Really Is Such A Thing)...
Because China would never go along.. India would NEVER go along...
So, even if it were proven beyond ANY doubt, that humans are responsible for Climate Change, it won't mean diddley squat to the Chinese...
So, why decimate the US economy if it will do absolutely no good whatsoever???
"Can you explain this, Colonel?? The fact is, there was no transfer order. Santiago wasn't going anywhere. Isn't that right, Colonel"
-Tom Cruise, A FEW GOOD MEN
:D
Michale
CW- my reply to 12 and 13 has gone missing. Just thought I'd let you know.
M - 17
"If the United States gave in and did EVERYTHING that the environmental loonies wanted us to do....... China would never go along.. India would NEVER go along.
Excellent point. Almost certainly argued in mirror image by VIPs in both China and India.
This is a case where all the major parties have to: have 1) some common belief structure and 2) agree to jump at the same time. Which is why agreement is so difficult to engineer within a country, let alone between different countries at different stages of economic development.
Another problem is that getting a consensus involves so many distinct disciplines: science, risk assessment, economics, engineering and politics and even game theory to name a few. Side note for sci-fi fans: this gives some insights about the "Fermi Paradox" about why we haven't heard anything from advanced alien civilizations.
Even if you believe that climate change is real, and will have significant negative impacts to your nations economy, you might be tempted to procrastinate and grow your standard of living a bit more. Less tempted if you believe that increased CO2 levels can't be reversed quickly. Than again, more so if you believe the problem can't solved - live it up now, and good luck to those stuck in the upcoming dystopia. We won't go extinct...probably.
It all comes to risk assessment filtered through science and politics. As a betting man and pessimist I'd put my money on dystopia....if I had a time machine so I could collect my winnings.
Excellent point. Almost certainly argued in mirror image by VIPs in both China and India.
Oh Donkey Balls...
Do you HONESTLY believe that China really gives a rip roarin' ass what the US does or does not do in regards to Climate Change??
It all comes to risk assessment filtered through science and politics. As a betting man and pessimist I'd put my money on dystopia....if I had a time machine so I could collect my winnings.
From where I sit, I see very little science and 99.999999% politics..
If it were true science then all the points that dispute Human Caused Global Warming (Yet There Hasn't Been Any For Decades) theory would be given as much weight as the science that supports the theory..
The simple fact is, the climate has been changing for billions of years.
This is fact..
The climate will continue to change once humans have gone the way of the dodo...
We could no more change climate than we could change the rotation of the planet..
Maybe in a couple hundred years.. Maybe..
But to think we could have an effect on climate in the here and now??
That's just human arrogance...
Michale
Not one single computer model or prediction vis a vis Human Caused Global Warming has EVER been accurate..
NOT.... ONE.... SINGLE.... TIME.....
When models and predictions of a theory has such a perfect NEVER RIGHT score, what's the most logical course of action??
Alter the theory to fit reality...
But, because Human Caused Climate Change is a POLITICAL issue, the religious-esque fanatics try to alter reality to fit the theory..
And here we are...
Michale
John From Censornati [3] -
It's an old bug in the counter. It counts "trackbacks" as comments (which they aren't), and I've never been able to figure out how to separate the two. Sorry for the confusion.
TheStig [19] -
It's been revived! Sorry for the delay...
As for the rest of the commentary... what HAVE you all been smoking? This was a War On Weed column, as I recall...
Hmmph.
-CW
Sorry, CW.. mea culpa...
Ya know it doesn't take much to take me off on a tangent.. :D
Michale