13 ms·

Seattle vacates hundreds of marijuana charges going back 30 years

343 points by MilnerRoute 9y ago

Fezzik 9y ago
This seems like a great move! I am confused about the criteria though - there is no way that there have only been 542 misdemeanor possession convictions in the last 30 years in Seattle... it's the 18th most populous city in the United States and, while safe, is far from the safest city. I can't find great numbers, but there are hundreds-of-thousands of possession arrests every year in this country. Does any one have specific information on what earns someone a judgment vacating their conviction?
- Annic 9y ago
  This one has more numbers in it: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2018/04/27/seattle-seeks-abolish-hundreds-pot-convictions-light-legal-marijuana/559577002/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2018/04/27/seattle-seeks...
- donarb 9y ago
  In Seattle, arrests for weed have not been a priority for a very long time. Usually, if you were stopped by a cop for smoking weed, they would frisk you and confiscate, unless you were carrying more than an ounce.
- loeg 9y ago
  Marijuana has been SPD's lowest priority for the past 15 years[0]. This is only misdemeanor possession convictions. Not felony possession; not anyone who wasn't convicted. Not anyone who was stopped and searched on a pretext of marijuana possession, and then charged with something else. I agree there are probably more people with records affected by marijuana possession, but it's a necessary first step and helps at least those 542. [0]: http://norml.org/news/2003/09/18/seattle-voters-approve-initiative-making-marijuana-enforcement-city-s-lowest-priority http://norml.org/news/2003/09/18/seattle-voters-approve-init...
tzury 9y ago
Two comments: 1. "...the move would affect 542 people who have weed convictions on their records..." 542 (people) /30 (years) / 12 (months) = 1.5 (convictions per month). This is very low number for a metropolis at the scale of Seattle. 2. Why is that "people of color" thing has to be mentioned here. If it's right, it is right. Leave the skin color aside Mr. City Attorney.
- djcapelis 9y ago
  What the is that "people of color" thing has to be mentioned here. If it's right, it is right. Leave the skin color aside Mr. City Attorney. It’s mentioned because it’s relevant! Maybe the background here isn’t obvious, but marijuana convictions have been systemically used against people of color in a way they haven’t generally been used against others. So understanding the disproportionate impact here, of which acknowledging it as true is the first step of many, is part of making this right.
  - lopmotr 9y ago
    The implication is that police and courts are racially profiling or being racist. But you shouldn't believe that without evidence. Other possibilities include - more police presence in black neighborhoods because of violent crime, so it's easier for them to find drugs while they're there, or black people being more careless about being caught.
    - djsumdog 9y ago
      I think the conviction rates and arrest rates should be entered into evidence in this argument. Compare them with various other studies about marijuana usage and you'll find whites, blacks and Latinos use marijuana in pretty much the same rates. And to be fair, a drug arrest if you're white is no cakewalk. You need a good lawyer and money, and even then you'll be doing a shit ton of community service. I'd like to see more studies showing these types of arrest/convictions by income. I have a feeling being poor (and being stuck with a public defender) plays a bigger role in drug crimes. There are more poor minorities, but that's a bigger causality issue that's considerably more complex.
pmoriarty 9y ago
I look forward to the day when all drug offenses are vacated, and all drugs are legal. This is a cognitive liberty issue. One should be allowed to alter one's own consciousness any way one sees fit.
- rubatuga 9y ago
  But obviously that isn’t in any country’s interest
- HarryHirsch 9y ago
  One should be allowed to alter one's own consciousness any way one sees fit Crime in the pursuit of drug addiction exists, meth- and cocaine-induced paranoia exists. There is a public health problem mixed in there. Anyone who thinks they can disregard the public health issue really needs an alcoholic in the family.
  - scarface74 9y ago
    So what's your proposed solution? "The War on Drugs" is actually a "War on poor people and minorities". Far more harm has come from locking people up for non violent crimes that disrupts families, gives police more power, and makes it almost impossible to find meaningful employment after being released. There have been plenty of studies showing poor and minorities get treated much harsher by the "justice" system.
    - icebraining 9y ago
      It's not necessarily my opinion, but one can decriminalize use without fully legalizing.
      - deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
    - donarb 9y ago
      Besides employment, it also prevents citizens from voting after they have served their time.
donarb 9y ago
Seattle police have been fairly tolerant about marijuana over the years. In 2013 at Hempfest, an annual festival celebrating hemp (and its potent cousin), the police set up a booth handing out lunch box sized bags of Doritos with a sticker warning people not to smoke and drive, but otherwise enjoy the munchies. I-502 was the initiative that legalized pot stores and personal use. http://cannabisdestiny.com/seattle-hempfest-doritos-priced-at-50-on-ebay/ http://cannabisdestiny.com/seattle-hempfest-doritos-priced-a...
- api_or_ipa 9y ago
  > the police set up a booth handing out lunch box sized bags of Doritos with a sticker warning people not to smoke and drive Many people forget that there are alternatives to strong-arm policing. Community based interactions such as this are often both more effective at changing behaviour as well as more cost effective, bags of chips are way cheaper than roadblocks and field sobriety checks.
rococode 9y ago
In these kinds of discussions about marijuana I often see people supporting the legalization of all drugs (see current top post in this thread). As someone who disagrees with this stance (but has very little personal experience with drugs and is probably misinformed about some of these things), could someone give counter-arguments for my concerns? I'd like to better understand the point of view that all drugs should be legal instead of a very specific subset of "safe" drugs. (I do think that marijuana should be legalized) 1. It's been medically shown that some drugs cause aggressive and violent behavior. Why should we allow an increase in that kind of behavior if it could be largely prevented as it is now? 2. If all drugs become legalized, what's to prevent addiction to certain drugs sweeping across an entire population and devastating productivity? If drugs are more accessible it seems likely that more people would experiment with and become addicted to more debilitating drugs. 3. It seems like whether drugs are legal or not, if you get addicted to some types of drugs you become effectively unable to earn an income. Even if legalizing drugs reduces the prices, aren't the people addicted to them still going to commit crimes to make the money they need since they still can't work normal jobs?
- StavrosK 9y ago
  I don't think that a reasonable argument could be made for legalizing meth or heroin, for example. They're just too destructive/deadly. It's like how not wearing a seatbelt while driving is illegal, it's to protect you from yourself.
  - nharada 9y ago
    One argument would be that by legalizing these drugs, it's much easier to offer treatment and addiction therapy. Users are less likely to get help when their habit is illegal, and the stigma around illegal activities makes citizens less willing to fund social programs that might help because they view it as helping criminals who don't deserve their hard earned tax money.
    - StavrosK 9y ago
      I meant legalizing the sale of the drug, not usage. I don't think addicts should be considered criminals.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
seattlejuana 9y ago
Actually, Seattle PROPOSED to vacate hundreds of marijuana charges going back 30 years. I hope the proposal gets accepted, but I dislike clickbait headlines even more. As I see it, the subtext on why TheRoot.com (1) wrote a misleading headline in that way was not only to clickbait readers, but also to function as way for The Root's journalist Angela Helm to use their media to pressure the courts into accepting the proposal. Which is a noble intent, but I hate clickbait. (1) TheRoot.com is part of the Gizmodo Media Group and focuses on Afro-American issues.
guylepage3 9y ago
This is one step forward in a positive direction for the US. I'm very happy to hear my neighboring country taking a more common sense approach to drugs. First Korea and now this.. What the heck is up with the world.. People are finally waking up. :)
dogruck 9y ago
I don’t support vacating the weed charges. I support legalization of weed and its products —- I think schedule 1 is wrong. But people who broke the law (and got caught) when it was illegal are law breakers. As Joey Diaz says —- if you got busted for weed, you’re a momo. If Seattle voters approve the vacating, then so be it. That’s their prerogative. I don’t support it though.
- DINKDINK 9y ago
  Would you support the imprisonment of someone who was proven to have smoked cannabis back when the state viewed it as illegal? Shouldn't we imprison all those people too because 'they broke a law when it was illegal'? What an astoundingly dim/daft position. Would you support the imprisonment of a doctor or woman who performed an abortion prior to Roe v Wade? How about two gay men performing sodomy? What more important, some pedantic reverence to the law or focusing on what's ethical and not?
  - firic 9y ago
    The difference is was the law immoral and now we are fixing that error, or did the law have good intent but now the politicians think that there is a better way to reach the solution. For example, if alcohol was taxed at 30% but someone only paid 20% tax, they would be jailed. If the tax got changed to 20% the person shouldn't be released because they broke a moral law. In your example of gay men being jailed, that law is immoral and therefore those people should be release after removing the law. I don't think that jailing people who were consuming illegal drugs is an immoral law. Sure, the law may not be so good and should be changed. But, people who break moral laws are not good for our society.
    - DINKDINK 9y ago
      >Would you support the imprisonment of someone who was proven to have smoked cannabis back when the state viewed it as illegal? So you're arguing that: yes, the state should expend resources today to imprison past-crime even though it's legal today. I wish I could have people like you foot the tax bill for imprisoning people, who decided for themselves what they could and could not put into their body, and not me.
psyc 9y ago
My takeaway from this thread: People are tyrants. They want the freedom to enjoy their own lifestyle, but are not tolerant, and so do not want liberty generally. The want to use the State to force people with different values to refrain from impinging on their lifestyle.

343 points by MilnerRoute 9y ago

This seems like a great move! I am confused about the criteria though - there is no way that there have only been 542 misdemeanor possession convictions in the last 30 years in Seattle... it's the 18th most populous city in the United States and, while safe, is far from the safest city. I can't find great numbers, but there are hundreds-of-thousands of possession arrests every year in this country. Does any one have specific information on what earns someone a judgment vacating their conviction?

Annic 9y ago
This one has more numbers in it: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2018/04/27/seattle-seeks-abolish-hundreds-pot-convictions-light-legal-marijuana/559577002/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2018/04/27/seattle-seeks...
donarb 9y ago
In Seattle, arrests for weed have not been a priority for a very long time. Usually, if you were stopped by a cop for smoking weed, they would frisk you and confiscate, unless you were carrying more than an ounce.
loeg 9y ago
Marijuana has been SPD's lowest priority for the past 15 years[0]. This is only misdemeanor possession convictions. Not felony possession; not anyone who wasn't convicted. Not anyone who was stopped and searched on a pretext of marijuana possession, and then charged with something else. I agree there are probably more people with records affected by marijuana possession, but it's a necessary first step and helps at least those 542. [0]: http://norml.org/news/2003/09/18/seattle-voters-approve-initiative-making-marijuana-enforcement-city-s-lowest-priority http://norml.org/news/2003/09/18/seattle-voters-approve-init...

tzury 9y ago

Two comments: 1. "...the move would affect 542 people who have weed convictions on their records..." 542 (people) /30 (years) / 12 (months) = 1.5 (convictions per month). This is very low number for a metropolis at the scale of Seattle. 2. Why is that "people of color" thing has to be mentioned here. If it's right, it is right. Leave the skin color aside Mr. City Attorney.

djcapelis 9y ago
What the is that "people of color" thing has to be mentioned here. If it's right, it is right. Leave the skin color aside Mr. City Attorney. It’s mentioned because it’s relevant! Maybe the background here isn’t obvious, but marijuana convictions have been systemically used against people of color in a way they haven’t generally been used against others. So understanding the disproportionate impact here, of which acknowledging it as true is the first step of many, is part of making this right.
- lopmotr 9y ago
  The implication is that police and courts are racially profiling or being racist. But you shouldn't believe that without evidence. Other possibilities include - more police presence in black neighborhoods because of violent crime, so it's easier for them to find drugs while they're there, or black people being more careless about being caught.
  - djsumdog 9y ago
    I think the conviction rates and arrest rates should be entered into evidence in this argument. Compare them with various other studies about marijuana usage and you'll find whites, blacks and Latinos use marijuana in pretty much the same rates. And to be fair, a drug arrest if you're white is no cakewalk. You need a good lawyer and money, and even then you'll be doing a shit ton of community service. I'd like to see more studies showing these types of arrest/convictions by income. I have a feeling being poor (and being stuck with a public defender) plays a bigger role in drug crimes. There are more poor minorities, but that's a bigger causality issue that's considerably more complex.

pmoriarty 9y ago

I look forward to the day when all drug offenses are vacated, and all drugs are legal. This is a cognitive liberty issue. One should be allowed to alter one's own consciousness any way one sees fit.

rubatuga 9y ago
But obviously that isn’t in any country’s interest
HarryHirsch 9y ago
One should be allowed to alter one's own consciousness any way one sees fit Crime in the pursuit of drug addiction exists, meth- and cocaine-induced paranoia exists. There is a public health problem mixed in there. Anyone who thinks they can disregard the public health issue really needs an alcoholic in the family.
- scarface74 9y ago
  So what's your proposed solution? "The War on Drugs" is actually a "War on poor people and minorities". Far more harm has come from locking people up for non violent crimes that disrupts families, gives police more power, and makes it almost impossible to find meaningful employment after being released. There have been plenty of studies showing poor and minorities get treated much harsher by the "justice" system.
  - icebraining 9y ago
    It's not necessarily my opinion, but one can decriminalize use without fully legalizing.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
  - donarb 9y ago
    Besides employment, it also prevents citizens from voting after they have served their time.

donarb 9y ago

Seattle police have been fairly tolerant about marijuana over the years. In 2013 at Hempfest, an annual festival celebrating hemp (and its potent cousin), the police set up a booth handing out lunch box sized bags of Doritos with a sticker warning people not to smoke and drive, but otherwise enjoy the munchies. I-502 was the initiative that legalized pot stores and personal use. http://cannabisdestiny.com/seattle-hempfest-doritos-priced-at-50-on-ebay/ http://cannabisdestiny.com/seattle-hempfest-doritos-priced-a...

api_or_ipa 9y ago
> the police set up a booth handing out lunch box sized bags of Doritos with a sticker warning people not to smoke and drive Many people forget that there are alternatives to strong-arm policing. Community based interactions such as this are often both more effective at changing behaviour as well as more cost effective, bags of chips are way cheaper than roadblocks and field sobriety checks.

rococode 9y ago

In these kinds of discussions about marijuana I often see people supporting the legalization of all drugs (see current top post in this thread). As someone who disagrees with this stance (but has very little personal experience with drugs and is probably misinformed about some of these things), could someone give counter-arguments for my concerns? I'd like to better understand the point of view that all drugs should be legal instead of a very specific subset of "safe" drugs. (I do think that marijuana should be legalized) 1. It's been medically shown that some drugs cause aggressive and violent behavior. Why should we allow an increase in that kind of behavior if it could be largely prevented as it is now? 2. If all drugs become legalized, what's to prevent addiction to certain drugs sweeping across an entire population and devastating productivity? If drugs are more accessible it seems likely that more people would experiment with and become addicted to more debilitating drugs. 3. It seems like whether drugs are legal or not, if you get addicted to some types of drugs you become effectively unable to earn an income. Even if legalizing drugs reduces the prices, aren't the people addicted to them still going to commit crimes to make the money they need since they still can't work normal jobs?

StavrosK 9y ago
I don't think that a reasonable argument could be made for legalizing meth or heroin, for example. They're just too destructive/deadly. It's like how not wearing a seatbelt while driving is illegal, it's to protect you from yourself.
- nharada 9y ago
  One argument would be that by legalizing these drugs, it's much easier to offer treatment and addiction therapy. Users are less likely to get help when their habit is illegal, and the stigma around illegal activities makes citizens less willing to fund social programs that might help because they view it as helping criminals who don't deserve their hard earned tax money.
  - StavrosK 9y ago
    I meant legalizing the sale of the drug, not usage. I don't think addicts should be considered criminals.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

seattlejuana 9y ago

Actually, Seattle PROPOSED to vacate hundreds of marijuana charges going back 30 years. I hope the proposal gets accepted, but I dislike clickbait headlines even more. As I see it, the subtext on why TheRoot.com (1) wrote a misleading headline in that way was not only to clickbait readers, but also to function as way for The Root's journalist Angela Helm to use their media to pressure the courts into accepting the proposal. Which is a noble intent, but I hate clickbait. (1) TheRoot.com is part of the Gizmodo Media Group and focuses on Afro-American issues.

guylepage3 9y ago

This is one step forward in a positive direction for the US. I'm very happy to hear my neighboring country taking a more common sense approach to drugs. First Korea and now this.. What the heck is up with the world.. People are finally waking up. :)

dogruck 9y ago

I don’t support vacating the weed charges. I support legalization of weed and its products —- I think schedule 1 is wrong. But people who broke the law (and got caught) when it was illegal are law breakers. As Joey Diaz says —- if you got busted for weed, you’re a momo. If Seattle voters approve the vacating, then so be it. That’s their prerogative. I don’t support it though.

DINKDINK 9y ago
Would you support the imprisonment of someone who was proven to have smoked cannabis back when the state viewed it as illegal? Shouldn't we imprison all those people too because 'they broke a law when it was illegal'? What an astoundingly dim/daft position. Would you support the imprisonment of a doctor or woman who performed an abortion prior to Roe v Wade? How about two gay men performing sodomy? What more important, some pedantic reverence to the law or focusing on what's ethical and not?
- firic 9y ago
  The difference is was the law immoral and now we are fixing that error, or did the law have good intent but now the politicians think that there is a better way to reach the solution. For example, if alcohol was taxed at 30% but someone only paid 20% tax, they would be jailed. If the tax got changed to 20% the person shouldn't be released because they broke a moral law. In your example of gay men being jailed, that law is immoral and therefore those people should be release after removing the law. I don't think that jailing people who were consuming illegal drugs is an immoral law. Sure, the law may not be so good and should be changed. But, people who break moral laws are not good for our society.
  - DINKDINK 9y ago
    >Would you support the imprisonment of someone who was proven to have smoked cannabis back when the state viewed it as illegal? So you're arguing that: yes, the state should expend resources today to imprison past-crime even though it's legal today. I wish I could have people like you foot the tax bill for imprisoning people, who decided for themselves what they could and could not put into their body, and not me.

psyc 9y ago

My takeaway from this thread: People are tyrants. They want the freedom to enjoy their own lifestyle, but are not tolerant, and so do not want liberty generally. The want to use the State to force people with different values to refrain from impinging on their lifestyle.