Seattle police will not enforce against public marijuana use, only warn verbally

http://spdblotter.seattle.gov/2012/12/05/officers-shall-not-take-any-enforcement-action-other-than-to-issue-a-verbal-warning-for-a-violation-of-i-502/

by LVB • 14 years ago

55 61 14 years ago

spdblotter.seattle.gov

snogglethorpe2• 14 years ago

Seems pretty reasonable...

nicholasreed• 14 years ago

There is one line in this article which makes it completely worth the read.

aaronbrethorst• 14 years ago

From what I heard on NPR earlier today, there was a big crowd near the Space Needle that all lit up at the stroke of 12 last night.

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.

ck2• 14 years ago

Wait, in public where if they were drinking alcohol it would be illegal?

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.

pimeys2• 14 years ago

In Berlin people smoke all the time in public places. In U-bahn stations, in parks, in bars etc. And I wouldn't care less. It's not harming me in any way, like it's not also harmful if they drink a bottle of beer on their way home in the subway, which is totally accepted also.

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.

DanBC• 14 years ago

> Do it in your own home and I don't care.

I'd prefer they did it around other adults and not in front of their children.

illuminate7• 14 years ago

"Wait, in public where if they were drinking alcohol it would be illegal?"

In Seattle, public use of marijuana is less likely to get you punished than alcohol usage.

dandelany• 14 years ago

So... If all they are authorized to do is issue verbal warnings, the "warnings" are essentially meaningless, aren't they? Not saying this is a bad thing, just strikes me as a bit odd - "Warning - stop smoking or I'll... Issue you another warning?"

dagw• 14 years ago

I'm guessing the process is:

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.

notimetorelax• 14 years ago

The article gives a reason for that: it's not clear at the moment how to enforce it, they are waiting for the new regulation to be drafted. I think it's absolutely correct on the part of the police department not to invent its own rules.

snogglethorpe2• 14 years ago

They're not going to enforce anything right now, but things are still up in the air, and they may in the future. By warning now, they can get the word out to people who start (following the election victory) lighting up in public, that "you might want to be careful about that, and here's why."

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.

sneak• 14 years ago

The problem with this is that a lot of people think that the battle is now over, that "it's legal".

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.

leehuffman2• 14 years ago

I don't believe there are a "lot" of people who think this. There was a ton of talk around this coming from the opposition of this initiative, and now that it has passed, there's plenty of press on it. I think the public is pretty well informed.

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.

zachrose• 14 years ago

Anyone know how the federal government would prosecute someone for possession of less than an ounce? What statutes would be violated? Who would prosecute you? What would the sentence be?

leehuffman2• 14 years ago

They wouldn't. It would be a waste of their time.

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.

sliverstorm• 14 years ago

for anyone who assumes that and does something (otherwise legal) to piss off the federal government, they can lock you up at will

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.

nickik6• 14 years ago

> First, it's you who puts yourself in that position.

The people in the saw movies all kill themself, right?

jonnathanson• 14 years ago

Also seems as if the White House is strongly considering some moves, either to stymie the state measures in court, or to start prosecuting possessions at the federal level.

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...

illuminate7• 14 years ago

The link you posted states that the White House is considering its options. This does not mean that the options posted there will be the final decision. I don't find it disheartening that they are publicly considering them, I will if they go with the bluster and actually put them into practice.

illuminate7• 14 years ago

"that a lot of people think that the battle is now over, that "it's legal" "

People in Seattle do not believe this.

digitalengineer2• 14 years ago

This: "the state’s working on setting up a system to license growers and sellers, but it could take up to a year)."

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).

TruthElixirX• 14 years ago

Why is that excellent? Why can't people just grow and sell like they do any other plant?

rmc2• 14 years ago

Because capitalism & marking is too good at extracting value and promoting it's product. Just look at tobacco and alcholol.

philwelch• 14 years ago

Two reasons: one, it's still a drug, not as bad as tobacco or alcohol but still worth controlling. Two: it's a tempting tax base.

shawn-butler4• 14 years ago

Many states have had tax stamps for marijuana and other street narcotics on the books for a long time already. You can still buy them and some are collectible [0].

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....

shawn-butler4• 14 years ago

Smoking tobacco is banned by law in most public places in Seattle including parks. Then it was decided not to be enforced. They have a history of doing this, passing laws and deciding they have no effect.

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.

nickik6• 14 years ago

Thats why economists nowdays come more and more to the conclusion that looking at the institutions rules is usless. You have to look at the defactor rules not at the ones writen down.

alanctgardner2• 14 years ago

Pedant here: de facto, two words, Latin for 'of fact'. That is all.

veidr2• 14 years ago

That's also one of the things that makes Seattle such a kickass city.

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.)

shawn-butler4• 14 years ago

This is the antithesis to good law. Crafting laws to deal with potential problems to be used at discretion of police should be avoided at all costs. First, because it is unjust, and second, because it leads directly to either actual or perceptions of abuse of police power undermining faith in the system. These sorts of "nuisance" discretionary laws are often used against minority populations discriminately.

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.

natrius• 14 years ago

In Austin, the transit authority wanted to ban smoking at bus stops, but they only have the authority to do so on their own property. The vast majority of bus stops are on city property instead, so they just put up "no smoking" signs at all the stops and don't try to enforce it.

http://www.capmetro.org/ridingrules.aspx?id=627

illuminate7• 14 years ago

"Legislative cowardice to actually make the law reflect reality"

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.

shawn-butler4• 14 years ago

I do think it is a bad thing. The law as written should reflect the practice of it. If smoking in public parks should not be enforced, then it should not be illegal. It shouldn't be up to whether a police officer or some prosecutor finds me agreeable enough of a citizen to give me a pass.

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.

marcuschristie• 14 years ago

> Funny how I can't just decide to relax my vigilance with regards to paying taxes.

Unenforceable (or very difficult to enforce) taxes occur too. For example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_tax

Mz4• 14 years ago

I lived in Washington state at one time and I tried to return at some point. I am glad I did not. I have respiratory problems, so I don't react well to smoke generally (of any kind). My past exposure to second hand marijuana smoke suggests I am allergic to it.

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.)

illuminate7• 14 years ago

Smoking in (and in front of) businesses and in offices is already prohibited in WA.

Mz4• 14 years ago

It is in San Diego as well. Yet it is impossible to avoid cigarette smoke in the downtown area. Fortunately, I left that area some weeks back.

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.

Seattle police will not enforce against public marijuana use, only warn verbally

Related Stories