Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

King, Pierce Counties [Seattle-Tacoma] Dismissing Pot Cases After Legalization
KOMONews.com ^ | 09 November 2012 | KOMO Staff

Posted on 11/10/2012 12:09:21 PM PST by zeestephen

Prosecutors in two of Washington state's most heavily populated counties say they will be dismissing all of their misdemeanor marijuana possession cases as a result of the passage of Initiative 502 legalizing marijuana possession of one ounce or less in the state.

(Excerpt) Read more at komonews.com ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: marijuana
In King County [Seattle], the decision will impact 175 cases involving individuals age 21 and older accused of possessing one ounce or less of marijuana, said Dan Donohoe, spokesman for the Prosecutor's Office.

King County Prosecuting Attorney Dan Satterberg [a Republican] said that dismissing these cases is the right thing to do in light of Tuesday’s vote.

“Although the effective date of I-502 is not until Dec. 6, there is no point in continuing to seek criminal penalties for conduct that will be legal next month,” Satterberg said.

In addition, Seattle police said Friday they will no longer assist federal authorities in investigations of marijuana users or marijuana-related businesses that are legal, at the state level, under I-502.

zeestephen comments...

This brings up some interesting questions on "State's Rights."

For Democrats, State's Rights are evil when they do not allow racial quotas or do allow the arrest of illegal immigrants.

But, State's Rights are copacetic when they block enforcement of drug and immigration laws.

As a child of the 60's, I have mixed feelings about the marijuana initiative, but I did finally vote for it.

I have always been a strong supporter of State's Rights as the best antidote to the Federal Government.

But it does cut both ways, doesn't it, depending on the laws you like or don't like?

1 posted on 11/10/2012 12:09:28 PM PST by zeestephen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: zeestephen

why?

those cases happened while it was still illegal didn’t they?


2 posted on 11/10/2012 12:11:41 PM PST by GeronL (http://asspos.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: zeestephen

why?

those cases happened while it was still illegal didn’t they?


3 posted on 11/10/2012 12:11:41 PM PST by GeronL (http://asspos.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: zeestephen

There are an increasing number of medical studies demonstrating that the use of marijuana can cause schizophrenia. My sister is borderline psychotic after nearly 40 years of using that crap.

No surprise, I did not vote for it.

My nephew told me that the day after WA voters approved the legalization, Lower Columbia College’s parking lot was populated with students lighting up weed. It stank so bad he no longer remains on campus to study, and is dropping out of school next term to go to work. Since his mother’s life and health has been ruined by drug use, I’m not surprised by his attitude.


4 posted on 11/10/2012 12:17:38 PM PST by SatinDoll (NATURAL BORN CITZEN: BORN IN THE USA OF CITIZEN PARENTS.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: zeestephen

One problem worried me about pot legalization.

Prosecutors frequently allow people to plead down to a Possession charge rather than charge them with something more serious.

That option is completely gone now.

Also, Possession is frequently used to put probation violators back in jail.

The new law actually does have some very sensible exceptions.

Driving under the influence is still illegal.

Employer drug tests are still legal.

Quite a few more.


5 posted on 11/10/2012 12:25:13 PM PST by zeestephen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GeronL

Why? Prosecutorial discretion exercised in this case in the expectation that juries hearing the cases would have the guts to engage in jury nullification of what was always a stupid law, knowing they’ll have local public opinion at their backs if they refuse to convict.

Support for the rule of law doesn’t mean turning all prosecutors into copies of Victor Hugo’s Javert.

Let it go. Rigorously enforcing bad laws, especially when they are unpopular, leads to greater contempt for the rule of law than does prosecutorial laxity, provided the laxity does not show favoritism.


6 posted on 11/10/2012 12:34:28 PM PST by The_Reader_David (And when they behead your own people in the wars which are to come, then you will know...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: The_Reader_David

libertarians an potheads are the enemies of civilization


7 posted on 11/10/2012 12:36:21 PM PST by GeronL (http://asspos.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: GeronL

Are drunks also enemies of civilization, or is it only folks who mess with their brain chemistry using substances that weren’t popular in Europe in the 1700’s that are a problem?


8 posted on 11/10/2012 12:45:31 PM PST by The_Reader_David (And when they behead your own people in the wars which are to come, then you will know...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: zeestephen

I voted against this law and would again today, but I believe that Satterberg made the right division. It is VERY doubtful that a Seattle judge or jury would find for the state on any of these cases now. Pursuing these cases would be a waste of time and money.


9 posted on 11/10/2012 12:51:19 PM PST by Gator113 (I would have voted for NEWT, now it's Romney & Ryan.~Just livin' life, my way~)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The_Reader_David

The whole anti-morality of liberaltarian is the problem. I had to quit a forum I was a member of since 2003 after the election. The hatred and vulgarity being put out by liberaltarians was as ugly as I have ever seen in my life.


10 posted on 11/10/2012 12:53:33 PM PST by GeronL (http://asspos.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Gator113

right division = right decision

I have never smoked dope, so perhaps that was Freudian. LOL


11 posted on 11/10/2012 12:53:46 PM PST by Gator113 (I would have voted for NEWT, now it's Romney & Ryan.~Just livin' life, my way~)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: zeestephen

Can you grow it?


12 posted on 11/10/2012 1:18:49 PM PST by dragonblustar (Allah Ain't So Akbar!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: GeronL
The whole anti-morality of liberaltarian is the problem

Their next move is to lower the age of consent.

13 posted on 11/10/2012 1:20:35 PM PST by dragonblustar (Allah Ain't So Akbar!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: dragonblustar

The guys on that forum thought decriminalizing kiddie porn possession was a good idea.


14 posted on 11/10/2012 1:30:47 PM PST by GeronL (http://asspos.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: zeestephen

nothing about minors on your list

not that potheads care about law anyways


15 posted on 11/10/2012 1:33:03 PM PST by GeronL (http://asspos.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: zeestephen

“The new law actually does have some very sensible exceptions.
Driving under the influence is still illegal.
Employer drug tests are still legal.”

When people start losing their jobs due to testing, or being rejected as job applicants from testing, watch them to either
1. Sue using the argument that they’re being discriminated against for use of a now-legal substance, or...
2. Put up another ballot initiative that makes drug testing for marijuana illegal (at least in that state).

Only a matter of time.


16 posted on 11/10/2012 1:42:09 PM PST by Road Glide
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: GeronL
I had to quit a forum I was a member of since 2003 after the election.

Got the boot, eh?

/johnny

17 posted on 11/10/2012 1:44:46 PM PST by JRandomFreeper (Gone Galt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: JRandomFreeper

Nope, I quit


18 posted on 11/10/2012 2:13:50 PM PST by GeronL (http://asspos.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: GeronL
Any chance we could look forward to that kind of good luck here on FR?

/johnny

19 posted on 11/10/2012 2:16:40 PM PST by JRandomFreeper (Gone Galt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Road Glide

That’s right!

These so-called sensible exceptions, were put in place just to get the law over the threshold.

I’m pretty sure over the course of time, these exceptions will fail in the courtroom, especially when the judge is in chambers getting his one toke over the line.


20 posted on 11/10/2012 2:25:01 PM PST by PoloSec ( Believe the Gospel: how that Christ died for our sins, was buried and rose again)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: JRandomFreeper

we cold definitely use an ignore function


21 posted on 11/10/2012 2:38:16 PM PST by GeronL (http://asspos.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: GeronL

Why were cases dismissed?

I’ll guess most people would now demand a jury trial and probably get nullification or a mistrial.


22 posted on 11/10/2012 5:47:46 PM PST by zeestephen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: dragonblustar

Can you grow it?

Yes, but I’m not sure how much.

You need a state license, too.

I’ll post the entire Initiative text in the next comment.


23 posted on 11/10/2012 5:54:48 PM PST by zeestephen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: GeronL
Yes, under-21 prohibited from buying, selling, growing, distribution.

I'll post the entire Initiative text in my next comment.

24 posted on 11/10/2012 5:58:39 PM PST by zeestephen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Road Glide
“Only A Matter Of Time”

So true.

They’ll challenge EVERY exclusion in court, and win most of them.

Of course, the “Legalized Weed” provision will probably never be challenged, and will never be overturned if it is.

25 posted on 11/10/2012 6:03:36 PM PST by zeestephen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: zeestephen
Effect of the Proposed Measure,
if Approved...

For persons over age 21, this measure would
remove state law criminal and civil prohibitions with
respect to growing, manufacturing, distributing,
and possessing marijuana consistent with a state
marijuana licensing and regulatory system.
Without violating state law, people over age 21 could
grow, distribute, or possess marijuana, as authorized
under various types of licenses. People could only
buy limited amounts of marijuana at a time, and
possession of marijuana by people over age 21 in
amounts that do not exceed that limit would not
violate state law. It would still be a crime to grow,
distribute, or possess marijuana except by following
the licensing and other requirements of this measure.
A license to produce marijuana would make it legal
under state law to grow marijuana. A license to
process marijuana would make it legal under state
law to process and package marijuana. It would
also make it legal under state law to make products24
that contain marijuana. Licensed producers and
processors could sell marijuana at wholesale,
but could not sell marijuana at retail directly to
consumers. Licensed retailers could sell marijuana,
and products containing marijuana, to consumers at
retail. Licensed retailers could also sell paraphernalia
items used to store or use marijuana.
It would cost $250 to apply for a license. It would
also cost $1,000 every year to get and keep a license.
A separate license would be required for each
location. Locations could not be within 1,000 feet
of any school, playground, recreation centers, child
care center, park, transit center, library, or game
arcade. Producers and processors could not have any
financial interest in any licensed marijuana retailer.
It would still be a state law crime for a person under
age 21 to grow, sell, or possess marijuana. It also
would remain illegal under state law for anybody,
including people who have licenses under this
measure, to sell marijuana or products containing
marijuana to people under 21 years old.
Licensed marijuana retailers could not sell any
products other than marijuana and items used
to store or use marijuana. Licensed marijuana
retailers could not allow people under age 21 on
their premises. Signs posted by licensed marijuana
retailers that are visible to the public would be
limited in size and content. No marijuana could be
displayed in a way that is visible from a public place.
It would be illegal to open or consume any marijuana
product on the premises. Licensed marijuana
retailers could be fined for violations. This measure
would prohibit any person from opening a package
containing marijuana in public view.
This measure would limit advertising of marijuana.
Advertisements would need to be at least 1,000 feet
away from any school, playground, recreation center,
child care center, park, transit center, library, or game
arcade. Advertisements would be banned from buses
and light rail, and from government property.
The state could deny, suspend, or cancel licenses.
Local governments could submit objections for the
state to consider in determining whether to grant or
renew a license. The state could inspect the premises
of any license holder. Prior criminal conduct could
be considered for purposes of granting, renewing,
denying, suspending or revoking a license. The state
could not issue a license to anybody under age 21.
The state could adopt further rules to implement this
measure.

This measure would require licensed producers
and processors to submit marijuana samples to an
marijuana. Licensed producers and
processors could sell marijuana at wholesale,
but could not sell marijuana at retail directly to
consumers. Licensed retailers could sell marijuana,
and products containing marijuana, to consumers at
retail. Licensed retailers could also sell paraphernalia
items used to store or use marijuana.
It would cost $250 to apply for a license. It would
also cost $1,000 every year to get and keep a license.
A separate license would be required for each
location. Locations could not be within 1,000 feet
of any school, playground, recreation centers, child
care center, park, transit center, library, or game
arcade. Producers and processors could not have any
financial interest in any licensed marijuana retailer.
It would still be a state law crime for a person under
age 21 to grow, sell, or possess marijuana. It also
would remain illegal under state law for anybody,
including people who have licenses under this
measure, to sell marijuana or products containing
marijuana to people under 21 years old.
Licensed marijuana retailers could not sell any
products other than marijuana and items used
to store or use marijuana. Licensed marijuana
retailers could not allow people under age 21 on
their premises. Signs posted by licensed marijuana
retailers that are visible to the public would be
limited in size and content. No marijuana could be
displayed in a way that is visible from a public place.
It would be illegal to open or consume any marijuana
product on the premises. Licensed marijuana
retailers could be fined for violations. This measure
would prohibit any person from opening a package
containing marijuana in public view.
This measure would limit advertising of marijuana.
Advertisements would need to be at least 1,000 feet
away from any school, playground, recreation center,
child care center, park, transit center, library, or game
arcade. Advertisements would be banned from buses
and light rail, and from government property.
The state could deny, suspend, or cancel licenses.
Local governments could submit objections for the
state to consider in determining whether to grant or
renew a license. The state could inspect the premises
of any license holder. Prior criminal conduct could
be considered for purposes of granting, renewing,
denying, suspending or revoking a license. The state
could not issue a license to anybody under age 21.
The state could adopt further rules to implement this
measure.

This measure would require licensed producers
and processors to submit marijuana samples to an
independent lab for regular testing. The state wouldreceive test results. Marijuana that does not satisfy
state standards would be destroyed.
Sales of marijuana would be taxed. Marijuana excise
taxes, in the amount of 25% of the selling price,
would be collected on all sales of marijuana, at
each level of production and distribution. Sale by a
marijuana producer to a marijuana processor would
be subject to a 25% tax. A sale by the processor to
a retailer would be subject to an additional 25% tax.
Sales of marijuana by a retailer would be subject to
an additional 25% tax. State and local sales taxes
would also apply to retail sales of marijuana.
The measure directs the state to spend designated
amounts from the marijuana excise taxes, license
fees, penalties, and forfeitures for certain purposes.
Those purposes include spending fixed dollar
amounts on: administration of this measure; a
survey of youth regarding substance use and
other information; a cost-benefit evaluation of the
implementation of this measure; and web-based
public education materials about health and safety
risks posed by marijuana use. Remaining money
would be distributed as follows: 50% for the state
basic health plan; 15% for programs and practices
aimed at prevention or reduction of substance
abuse; 10% for marijuana education; 5% for other
health services; 1% for research on short-term and
long-terms effects of marijuana use; and .75% for a
program that seeks to prevent school dropouts. The
remaining 18.25% would be distributed to the state
general fund.

This measure would also amend the law that
prohibits driving under the influence. It would
specifically prohibit driving under the influence of
marijuana. Consent to testing to determine whether
a driver’s blood contains alcohol or any drug would
specifically apply to marijuana as well. State law
that currently specifies a level of blood alcohol
concentration for driving under the influence would
be amended to also specify a level of the active
ingredient in marijuana. A person who drives with a
higher blood concentration of that active ingredient,
or who is otherwise under the influence of marijuana,
would be guilty of driving under the influence. For
persons under 21, any level of the active ingredient
of marijuana would be prohibited. Federal marijuana laws could still be enforced in Washington.

26 posted on 11/10/2012 6:15:11 PM PST by zeestephen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson