9 ms·
Seattle police will not enforce against public marijuana use, only warn verbally
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- snogglethorpe 14y agoSeems pretty reasonable...
- nicholasreed 14y agoThere is one line in this article which makes it completely worth the read.
- aaronbrethorst 14y agoFrom 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-legal-startup-premium/ 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 14y agoWait, 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.
- pimeys 14y agoIn 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.
- digitalengineer 14y agoAs a Dutchman I agree with you (and your German beers)! People relaxing and having a drink/smoke in the park? No problem. In France it's the same, but with wine.
- pimeys 14y agoWaiting for the summer again to be able to do that...
- agilebyte 14y agoSummer... I think we had that one in the UK at some point
- rmc 14y agoVaries a lot by country. Technically in Ireland it's illegal to drink in public. Police can confiscate drink. However the irish police enforcment can be flexible sometimes.
- barry-cotter 14y agoI'm in favour of banning smoking in all enclosed workplaces and I can see why people are against public drinking. Cigarette smoke smells vile and triggers asthma attacks. From the Irish experience people go “outside” to the patio/courtyard. This means you can drink and smoke but people aren't forced to endure your pollution. 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.
- nickik 14y agoHow are the forced. There have allways been bars that allowed smoking and bars that didnt. Everybody gets what they want. I see no reason why owner should do what he thinks is best.
- DanBC 14y 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.
- illuminate 14y 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 14y agoSo... 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 14y agoI'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 14y agoThe 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.
- snogglethorpe 14y agoThey'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 14y agoThe 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.
- leehuffman 14y agoI 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 14y agoAnyone 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?
- leehuffman 14y agoThey 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.
- wilfra 14y agoThat's actually not what he was referring to. I'd be interested to see him post one example, though, of the federal government making any enforcement on users for any reason at any time. 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.
- digitalengineer 14y agoThis: "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 14y agoWhy is that excellent? Why can't people just grow and sell like they do any other plant?
- shawn-butler 14y agoMany 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.htm http://terrefhosting.net/gerry/marijuanastamps/state-stamps....
- shawn-butler 14y agoSmoking 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.
- nickik 14y agoThats 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 14y agoPedant here: de facto, two words, Latin for 'of fact'. That is all.
- veidr 14y agoThat'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-butler 14y agoThis 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.
- Mz 14y agoI 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.)
- illuminate 14y agoSmoking in (and in front of) businesses and in offices is already prohibited in WA.
- Mz 14y agoIt 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.
- illuminate 14y ago"But my hope is that it will be handled in a way that does not become an undue personal burden for me." I just don't understand how you want it handled any differently than cigarettes, which are are already prohibited in most areas.
- Mz 14y agoMy hope is that it will be handled differently than how it is apparently being handled in Washington. I am currently in an area where cigarettes are not a constant problem for me. So I don't think my hope is unreasonable.