December 7, 2012

"Does this mean you should flagrantly roll up a mega-spliff and light up in the middle of the street?"

"No."
If you’re smoking pot in public, officers will be giving helpful reminders to folks about the rules and regulations under I-502 (like not smoking pot in public). But the police department believes that, under state law, you may responsibly get baked, order some pizzas and enjoy a Lord of the Rings marathon in the privacy of your own home, if you want to.
That's the Seattle Police Department, writing that, by the way. Don't you like police department humor?

AND: "I'm not sure where you're suppose to get it," King County Prosecutor Dan Satterberg told CNN. "If you stumble across some on the street or it falls from the sky, then you can have it. Otherwise, you are part of a criminal chain of distribution."
The Washington State Liquor Control Board has until December 1, 2013, to establish clear guidelines for the regulation of marijuana sale and distribution. Until then, obtaining marijuana by any means remains illegal.

Also, marijuana possession is still illegal under federal law, but the government hasn't said what it intends to do about Initiative 502. The U.S. attorney's office released a statement yesterday reaffirming its position on the illegality of any action involving marijuana, stressing that federal properties such as military bases and national parks remain off-limits to Washington tokers.
The line between the risk-taking transgressors and timid rule-followers remains, even today. As I said, that's not fair

26 comments:

edutcher said...

Considering the Choomie In Chief is still down on it, you might want take der Deutsche blick before lighting up.

Craig said...

Seeds planted indoors on election day should start getting ripe and ready for harvest sometime in February.

Carol said...

Funny how blue states go in for federalism some cases but not in others.

Larry J said...

Not being up on my pot slang, when I saw the word "spliff", I thought it was a reference to Calvin and Hobbes.

Never mind.

Erika said...

My concern has also been the confusion inherent in this. I want as few laws as possible but I want the ones that we do have to be crystal clear and strictly enforced. I believe in this weird concept called 'the rule of law.'

Crimso said...

"I believe in this weird concept called 'the rule of law.'"

"There exists a limit to the force even the most powerful may apply without destroying themselves. Judging this limit is the true artistry of government. Misuse of power is the fatal sin. The law cannot be a tool of vengeance, never a hostage, nor a fortification against the martyrs it has created. You cannot threaten any individual and escape the consequences." Frank Herbert

Aridog said...

Until then [01 Dec 13], obtaining marijuana by any means remains illegal.

Laws created by amateurs writing "propositions" that are vague and contravene other laws make laws for discriminatory enforcement and provide no protection. Having no stipulated process in the proposition/law at the time of approval assures the worst possible outcome.

But what the hell, Congress does this all of the time ... and nothing brings joy to thousands of bureaucrats than more rule making, in place of actual legal stipulation, where they get to actually write the enforced law, not Congress.

My favorite example: The Clean Air Act.

Aridog said...

Crimso said...

The law cannot be a tool of vengeance ...

Tell that to Gibson Guitars...among many others.

Vengeful application is what I meant when I said discriminatory enforcement....is the result of poorly written law.

Much of our law today is vaguely written so that rule writing bureaucrats can make 2+2=99.6879 or failing than redefine what "is" is in a spinning semantic tango. Think "tax" versus "penalty" where a penalty is re-defined as a tax.

SteveR said...

In the olden days, while "buying" may have represented a small fraction of time one spent on pot, it was the riskiest. You have to be careless to get busted for possesion of or smoking pot.

I've known, over the last 40 years, many many people (many!) who smoked pot, none of whom were ever busted.

Erika said...

Crimso, yes, laws inherently have an oppressive aspect, which is why I want few of them. I want liberty constrained as little as necessary, not least because I don't trust the people who agitate for, write, and enforce laws. But the laws that we do have, must to be adhered to without being subject to vagueness, situational interpretation, corruption and and manipulation. I've lived in places where equal treatment under the law was a sick joke, and your experience of the criminal justice system was entirely dependent on your connections, social position and ability to pay bribes. I don't want to live in a place where if you step one way, you're violating one law; step another way and you're violating another; and your chances of being punished for either vary dramatically according to numerous factors.

Gabriel Hanna said...

Give it a little time for Washington.

They're not libertarians over there, that's why they want to reactivate the state monopoly they just broke. And they're not into treating adults like adults, because one of the concerns they had re: legalization was that it might send a mixed message about smoking tobacco.

But it's a good step, even though the motives are mixed and the execution flawed. Let's not make the perfect the enemy of the good.


Roger J. said...

I predict the sales of cheetos, potato chips, doritos and the like will rise in Washington state.

carrie said...

Just wait until they let people use food stamps to buy pot for brownies.

mccullough said...

The legalization of pot is just more statism. Regulate and tax. That's all they know. Time to start turning them against each other: will police officers be able to toke? Can you toke and still own a firearm?

This isn't about freedom. It never is.

jimbino said...

Now's the time to privatize the national parks and forests. Up till now, they just discriminated against Blacks and Hispanics; now they've crossed the line by prohibiting Whites from smoking dope.

john said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
john said...

True photo, very funny:

With skateboard in one hand, Michael Cardenas, 19, smiles as he holds up his purchased bag of marijuana in front of Arizona Organix, the first legal medical marijuana dispensary to open in Arizona, Thursday Dec. 6, 2012, in Glendale, Ariz. Several dozen waited outside for the Glendale dispensary to open, the first among 96 applicants chosen through a lottery system for 126 geographic areas across the state.

His cap is not on correctly, tho.

chrisnavin.com said...

Gabriel Hanna: They're not libertarians, that's for sure.

Amen.

The Seattle area is like the Bay area, but more subdued, sullen, and less civilized in some ways. It's chock full of the people who've dedicated their lives to rent-seeking off the taxpayer dime. That's why many people move here (aside from the industries, like aviation and tech...it's a boom and bust town).

It's like a party on the back porch of your parent's house: counter-culture, immature in many ways, anti-establishment, so I could see them embracing pot.

But the liberals, nannies, self-righteous folks are the ones who really run it in many cases: Labor and Industries, Education, Unions, Transportation.

Like you said: tax revenue to be poured right back into Labor and Industries, Education, Unions, Transportation.

That's what they want.

I don't know what direction you're looking to know this is a step in the right one. Depends on where you stand.

tiger said...

Any idea how this law will treat people picked up for driving while high?

How about public 'highness'? Is it outlawed the way public drunkenness is?

Legalizing pot is opening Pandora's Box. How soon before there will be PSAs and calls for money to help treat marijuana abuse?

It's gonna happen and we all know it; it is better to leave pot illegal.

damikesc said...

But what the hell, Congress does this all of the time ... and nothing brings joy to thousands of bureaucrats than more rule making, in place of actual legal stipulation, where they get to actually write the enforced law, not Congress.

What I'll never get is why courts refuse to toss out laws for being too vague. If the law doesn't explain exactly WHAT something is, why should some namby-pamby dipshit in DC make that call?

Oh, the legal community leans Left hard? Then I get why judges don't toss those laws.

Progressivism is a cancer on society. The West used to be really cool, once.

damikesc said...

It's like a party on the back porch of your parent's house: counter-culture, immature in many ways, anti-establishment, so I could see them embracing pot.

Ironically, there isn't a group that is more pro-establishment than Progressives.

The Republicans need to toss out the entire party establishment. If they won't get behind legalizing pot, legalizing prostitution, and curbing copyright law tremendously --- then what good are they?

Sam L. said...

Life ain't fair.

purplepenquin said...

it is better to leave pot illegal.

Just curious, and I truly don't mean this in a mean way, but are there any other all-natural plants that you beleive an adult should be banned from growing/ingesting?

Crimso said...

Aridog and Erika:
I think you missed my intended point. Your objections are examples of the "fatal sin." I believe in Herbert's assertion that those who misuse power cannot escape the consequences. At least not in the long-term. And Herbert also asserted that short-term expediency ALWAYS fails in the long-term. This I also believe.

O Ritmo Segundo said...

And they're not into treating adults like adults, because one of the concerns they had re: legalization was that it might send a mixed message about smoking tobacco.

Mixed message, sayeth the puritan dimwit? And what praytell are the statistics on cannabis-related deaths and how they allegedly stack up against those proven to be caused by tobacco?

True ignorance of fathomless depths.

Gabriel Hanna said...

@Ritmo:Mixed message, sayeth the puritan dimwit?

Yes, those who were making that argument were dimwits and puritans, of a progressive stripe.

I was not one of them, so I am not presenting their case as well as they might. I merely reported the gist of what was said.