Seattle police will not enforce against public marijuana use, only warn verbally
spdblotter.seattle.gov
spdblotter.seattle.gov
It's not. Possession of marihuana is a federal crime in the US. If you are a user, you live at the mercy of the federal government not prosecuting you.
This means that, for normal plebs, it's effectively legal - but for anyone who assumes that and does something (otherwise legal) to piss off the federal government, they can lock you up at will.
That's a terrifying thought.
You're right in the fact that it's terrifying, however, this is an issue that has to be pushed forward. Washington state residents have made it clear that they want to be the ones to do that. If we get nothing more out of this than a real conversation around real facts on a federal level, then I'll consider this a success.
What sneak is referring to are the producers, distributors, and retailers that will eventually make up this system. The federal government would have interest in those dealing with large quantities.
The problem is that everyone is freaking out before anything is put in place. If the federal government plans to do any of this, they're going to let the state know, and we'll just have to see how it plays out from there.
You want to ignore that? And still claim it might happen?
This gets decided by the DOJ, which is controlled by President Obama, whose base is college students and...others who show a propensity toward lighting up. Cracking down on everyday pot smokers would be political suicide.
First, it's you who puts yourself in that position. Second, I'm suddenly reminded of the whole "brought in Al Capone on tax evasion" deal.
The people in the saw movies all kill themself, right?
It's highly disheartening that the federal government believes this is a good use of their resources and time right now.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/07/us/marijuana-initiatives-i...
People in Seattle do not believe this.
Issue warning. If person heeds warning, move on. If person ignored warning, grab them for something related, like loitering, being a public nuisance, disorderly conduct, harassment or whatever the local equivalent of not doing as you're told is.
So if they do decide to get more harsh on public use in the future, the the public will be more prepared, and there'll be less of a mess due to a sudden shift in enforcement.
It seems pretty clever, and good policy.
Legislative cowardice to actually make the law reflect reality, I suppose. Funny how I can't just decide to relax my vigilance with regards to paying taxes.
Don't "enforce the hell out of the law" like a rookie cop with a hard on. Instead, realize that one of the most important jobs of a city is to strike the right balance to make the city an awesome place to live and work.
Laws don't always have to mean heavyhanded enforcement; sometimes they just provide the authority needed to deal with a potential problem in case it ever actually becomes a serious problem.
(Which smoking a cigarette in an outdoor park really, really isn't. I don't care to stand right next to smokers either, but in an outdoor park you really don't have to.)
Prohibition was essentially a social/cultural movement that was very bad law making possession and distribution of alcohol illegal because it had the potential to lead to things that were already illegal (public drunkeness, etc).
These public smoking bans in theory are crafted because secondhand smoke (be it from tobacco or another source) has the potential to cause cancer in people standing nearby in a public park.
Of course, neither prohibition nor smoking bans in public parks were ever really about preventing minor incidents of public drunkeness or absurdly low risks of cancer from secondhand smoke. They were obviously about abusing the law in order to discourage behaviour (drinking, smoking) that were previously a cultural norm but for which no actual justification exists for ending.
Really bugs me, but I'm obviously biased by preferences for minimalism in regulation and law.
I think it is good policing, though. Seattle has a pretty great police department, especially for a city so big.
Now, the cops deciding how and what laws to enforce doesn't always work out well, but as a practical matter that is part of what police departments have to do in every city, and Seattle's police seem to do it particularly well.
You make this all sound like a terrible thing. Not punishing consensual "crime" is excellent, and refusing to enforce unjust laws is the opposite of cowardice.
That's what I mean by cowardice; on the part of lawmakers who don't want exercise the courage to make the law reflect reality and instead just do whatever is politically expedient.
Unenforceable (or very difficult to enforce) taxes occur too. For example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_tax
edit: and then meanwhile, there's this: http://www.geekwire.com/2012/diego-marijuana-bill-gates-bud-... — a former Microsoftie who's starting up a premium pot business. I'm not sure how he's going to make this work until late next year (since it's not legal to sell here, yet!), but more power to the guy.
Were they over 18? Did they drive home afterwards?
Do it in your own home and I don't care. Do it in the street or drive stoned and I have a major problem with it.
This is one of the things I didn't understand when I visited SF and NY last spring. Especially the drinking part. Parks are the best place to drink some wine or beer, if you ask me.
As far as public drinking goes, yes it is lovely but not all countries have as healthy a drinking culture as Germany. I loved going to the Neckarwiese with friends when I lived in Heidelberg and having some beers and a barbecue. But most countries have more Assis than Germany per head, more assholes who would start fights, be loud and obnoxious etc. Or just more binge drinkers. I'm pretty sure legal street drinking just wouldn't work in Ireland or Britain. Too many drunks.
I smoke in bars maybe twice a week and drink on the street or in a park pretty regularly.
The rationale behind a ban is approximately thus: Smoking is unpleasant for non-smokers who are a majority. Due to co-ordination problems non smoker disutility from being exposed to cigarette smoke outweighs smoker utility from smoking and this is stable and bad. The government, in an attempt to increase total utility bans smoking in workplaces and total utility goes up.
Forced is perhaps the wrong word but I'm just hoping they bring in a smoking ban here in Shanghai. Going outside to smoke just isn't that much of a hardship and it makes things more pleasant for non smokers and many smokers.
I dont know about irland but in Switzerland I was in a Non-Smoking Irish bars for years befor the smokingban came.
Also if it is not a viable buissness model it seams that most people just dont care. Why then do we need to regulate it?
As far as your argument goes for utility, it seems that most non-smokers simple do not really care but the smokers care a lot. Thats why the market is the way it is (or was). Also explain this, lots of resturants where non-smoking only partly smoking befor the smoking bans, so the market does not generally seam to have a problem with banning smoking where people dont want it.
My rational is that I dislick smoking in restaurants but I dont really care in bars that much.
It seams to me that the total utility is much better matched if you let the market do what it does. Also the market is able to change if utility changes much faster then the goverment can change law.
It's hard to predict, of course, but if you compare it to the 'legalization' of weed in Holland and the resulting 'healthy' weed culture, it might actually work.
Maybe in the very long run but I doubt it. And in the long run we're all dead. Personally I doubt drinking culture is really that malleable. In Europe the further north you go the more people drink, on average. Whether it's cultural or genetic drinking culture seems quite stable.
As to the Dutch I am not terribly surprised. If they legalise cocaine it will also generally be used more sensibly than in most countries.
To claim that second-hand smoke is not harmful is utterly absurd. The same goes for alcohol consumption in public places. It's fine to have a drink on the subway, but who takes care of the shattered glass the following day[0]? If you're lucky, the local government will use ratepayer money to clean it up. If you're not lucky, it stays there indefinitely.
Frankly, I think that those who drink or smoke in public are being totally inconsiderate of others.
[0]: This wouldn't be such a big deal if glass bottles weren't so popular. Unfortunately, they are.
Also one could argue that if the park is publicly owned it should be publicly cleaned. If you dont want the park getting dirty you should let people in there.
> Frankly, I think that those who drink or smoke in public are being totally inconsiderate of others.
I think you can make a argument for smoking inside (or bars for example) but in a public park.
Also you have to understand berlin, even if smoking is not allowed in bars it is done in almost every bar, people seem to just have rejected the legislation.
I was a bit harsh on drinkers. It is more smokers whom I have a beef with. What I should have said is that I feel as though a consistent approach to regulation of where glassware can and cannot be used is required.
> Also one could argue that if the park is publicly owned it should be publicly cleaned.
Perhaps that might be possible where you live, but it would never happen in my city. Most people here (including myself, I admit) simply don't have the necessary motivation to pick up broken glass unless it's in a place where they can't afford to ignore it (a playground, for example). I cycle-commute each day, and there has been a broken bottle sitting on one of the roads I use for the better part of a few months. The road in question has relatively little vehicle traffic, but is next to a small University and is part of a major bicycle corridor used by hundreds of cyclists each day. It would be trivially easy for just about any of the people who pass it to try and dispose of it properly, but nobody ever does. Annoyances like broken glass, buckled footpaths, etc. tend to just be ignored until somebody gets hurt. I'm not convinced that it would be possible (at least, not in the short term) to get a large number of residents to voluntarily take responsibility for fixing problems which they did not cause.
Im totally ok for example with giving fines to people who do make a lot of shit around.
I just kind of think that a park where you can not sit around drink and smoke with your friends is kind of pointless.
This is simply wrong. Smoking tobacco is highly cancerogenic and so very harmful. Smoking is also highly unpleasant -- it's just that smokers get used to the abuse of their own bodies (and that of others) over time, and feel good about it, because the advertising industry has successfully fooled large groups of people into believing that smoking makes them more sexually attractive.
I was visiting Berlin a few months ago, and found the smoke in bars and restaurants unbearable. Smoking indoors in the presence of non-smokers is cruel and shows a lack of empathy for others. I couldn't leave fast enough.
I agree however that public drinking (in moderation) is fine and should be legal everywhere.
I'd prefer they did it around other adults and not in front of their children.
In Seattle, public use of marijuana is less likely to get you punished than alcohol usage.
Excellent. Should have the criminals worried. Even in Holland we still don't have this. (Although we're allowed to have several cannabis plants for personal use).
They were used so they could add on even more jail time and so they could seize assets easily since taxes weren't being paid. There was a federal marijuana tax stamp too starting in the 30s I think but it was ruled partially unconstitutional (maybe in the early 70s?) since the way the law was written in order to purchase the stamp you had to incriminate yourself.
[0] http://terrefhosting.net/gerry/marijuanastamps/state-stamps....
Given the general rise in asthma (due largely to environmental factors), I am not happy with the idea of tolerating another kind of smoking in public. I think there is plenty of evidence that respiratory problems can be acquired. You don't have to be born with one.
(Don't get me wrong: I think you should be allowed to consume whatever you want. I just don't think you should be allowed to force me and other people to consume it second hand.)
I imagine legalized marijuana will eventually come to California as well. This state has had medical marijuana for years. But my hope is that it will be handled in a way that does not become an undue personal burden for me. My life is hard enough as is.
I just don't understand how you want it handled any differently than cigarettes, which are are already prohibited in most areas.
I am currently in an area where cigarettes are not a constant problem for me. So I don't think my hope is unreasonable.
Most states have moved to blocking smoking in public areas to differing extents, the more blatant exceptions to this tend to be areas like Las Vegas where establishments pay fines for the repeat violations of their customers.
The thing I am reacting negatively to is not the current laws concerning smoking but specifically the public announcement that they will only issues warnings. That is practically an invitation to people who want to be defiant assholes to do whatever they want.
Laws are merely one tool for trying to keep the peace. And the reality is that if you actually have to enforce the law (overly much), you have already kind of failed. I struggle with how to say this clearly, because any sweeping statement is going to be wrong and invite attack and a lot of people are very uncomfortable with how things actually work. But, basically, you announce what is illegal knowing some people will politely do as they are told and then you put in place just enough consequences to act as a deterent to folks who are less inclined to simply do as they are told. Of course, some people will break the law for various reasons. Either they didn't know or it is a poorly designed law that is nearly impossible to obey or...whatever. However if things are done right, there will only be a moderate need for active enforcement. But an announcement like this amounts to a public invitation to do as you please. Some people will do it just because of this invitation, just like some seventeen year olds with college ID's will drink because some places will take a college ID at the door. It is a loophole and some people will take childish glee in that space where it kind of is forbidden but really is not.
That is the piece I hope California handles better. I also hope that the fact that there is medical marijuana here already will help prevent the "must get drunk on my 21st birthday" style of reaction that you so often see when things finally get legalized. I believe that drugs and alcohol tend to attract people who somehow benefit physically. In California, if you really need marijuana and can prove it, it is already legal. Folks who are merely recreational users are going to be less rabid about wanting to fight for and exercise their right to toke. I think it is the people who strongly benefit (medically in some way) who are the most vehement. And those people are mostly already okay to smoke it here. So I am hoping that helps make it a non-event with people happy to keep it behind closed doors.