Posted on 05/20/2006 10:50:46 AM PDT by Wolfie
Activists Pushing To Relax Marijuana Enforcement
Oregon -- A marijuana advocacy group wants Portland police to get their priorities straight. Introduced by the Citizens for a Safer Portland in early February, a new citywide initiative is aimed at reducing adult marijuana-related offenses to be the “lowest law-enforcement priority.”
Chris Iverson, chief petitioner of the initiative and campaign manager for CSP, is confident Portland voters will approve the measure if it gets on the ballot.
About 56 percent of city voters endorsed the failed statewide medical marijuana expansion initiative two years ago, which he said was “under-funded and not well-organized.”
“Because of the high yes vote in Portland with Measure 33 in 2004, we feel that we have a good chance to win,” said Iverson.
Past low-priority proposals like Seattle’s Initiative 75, passed in 2003, and Oakland, Calif.’s Proposition Z, passed in 2004, seem to have spawned greater support for drug law reform. Other similar measures may be headed to the November ballot in several California cities as well as Missoula, Mont.
The Portland initiative defines marijuana-related offenses as any “in which possession, delivery or manufacture of marijuana is an element.” It declares that “law enforcement activities related to all offenses other than marijuana-related offenses shall be a higher priority than all law enforcement activities related to marijuana-related offenses.”
Sales, cultivation, distribution, and possession of pot by minors or adults on public property and use in connection with the operation of a vehicle aren’t covered by the initiative directive.
Supporters say the initiative is a good first step toward focusing law enforcement more on real threats to the community, like crimes against people and property.
Portland police officials reported 799 adult arrests last year for marijuana-related offenses. According to one study, the average cost of sending an offender through Multnomah County Drug Court is about $6,000, meaning that taxpayers spent about $4.8 million to prosecute adult pot possession offenses in 2005.
The initiative also contains restrictions on the Portland police department’s relationship with federal and state authorities as well, stating that local officials “shall not accept formal deputization or commissioning by a federal law enforcement agency to the extent that such deputization or commissioning will include investigating, citing, arresting, or seizing property from adults for marijuana- related offenses.”
Some supporters of the measure say this part of the initiative is important to keep local officials from joining with federal agents to bust medical marijuana collectives.
“This really strikes at the heart of the issue with regard to local law enforcement cooperating with the Drug Enforcement Administration against medical cannabis dispensaries,” said Nikos Leverenz, acting director of the California office of the Drug Policy Alliance.
Cutting off funds that contribute to law enforcement activities for marijuana-related offenses is a unique part of the Portland initiative; of the six proposals introduced this year and the two past successful ones, only the Portland and Missoula initiatives specify that city officials cannot “accept any funds from any source, organization or individual, including federal funds or state funds.” The present California initiatives only prohibit federal funds.
Of course, marijuana possession of any amount and for any purpose remains a federal crime. And advocates for the measures don’t expect the DEA to be particularly mellow about any effort seen as undermining the drug war. They anticipate a federally-backed “smear campaign” against the Portland initiative if it makes it to the ballot.
On May 6 CSP representatives attended the Million Marijuana March, hosted by Oregon NORML (National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws), to gather signatures and raise support for the initiative with the 300 or so marchers in attendance.
However, signature-gathering for the measure has been a little lethargic thus far. With the signatures due on July 7, the CSP is only about half-way to the 26,691 they need to make the Nov. 7 ballot, according to the CSP website - http://www.makeportlandsafer.org
The group also claims it is short on campaign funds. Even after a grant from the Marijuana Policy Project for $120,000, local organizers say they need an additional $20,000 for advertising and campaigning.
Despite these hurdles, Iverson is optimistic that with more people out gathering signatures and more public events planned they will raise the support needed to move the initiative forward.
And you think that means smoke dope?
Interesting interpretation.
wELL..pretty ridiculous response.
And neither do I...
The druggies, like the sex perverts, can only perpetuate an ever increasing market for their filth by molesting the minds and bodies of the young ones... this is the only way they get new Demo-rat voters... CHEMICAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL WARFARE!
Indeed... trouble is, it is not Kosher...
PaxMacian thinks God wants everybody to be drug addicts...
Since I am an atheist, I guess that makes me and everybody else who wants that crap away from our kids a bunch of heretics.
See how that works?
Liberals pull it all the time...
"Whoever thinks he understands divine scripture or any part of it, but whose interpretation does not build up the twofold love of God and neighbor, has not really understood it." St. Augustine
St. Augustine was a doper? Did you pray to the ghost of Tim Leary for that "revelation"?
Weed worshipers are twisted.
Yep, and I vote. (Though, some of us are wondering lately.) But, in case you did not notice, the story is about Portland, Oregon. Portland is pervert, doper central for the Democrap Party in this state; it is San Francisco North... (I am formerly a California Central Coast resident.)
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
According to the DEA, Bill Clinton was the toughest drug warrior since FDR. They gave him an award for that.
Really? Was it because he didn't inhale? Drug abuse surged during the Clinton years...
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
They gave him an award for that.
His appointees gave him an award. Liberals always pat each other on the backs and give each other awards. Clinton also won the Stanley Cup for tonsil hockey.
Also, I am not so sure the Constitutional alcohol prohibition was a bad idea really. Repealing Prohibition legitimized the rum running Kennedy fortune; and that drunk fat bastard Terd Kennedy and his kin still make tons of money off of other people's misery. Too bad Elliot Ness couldn't have shut them down...
And, it is not Kosher...
“If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.” (Luke 16:31)
Not all drugs, just marijuana.
Elliot Ness was not corrupt and would have shut them down had he any shred of evidence.
Of course, this rum running rivalry was also part of the feud between the mob and the Kennedy clan. (Notice that two of them were victims of very suspicious murders, one of which we will never know the full details about.)
I think all drugs should be legal. Marijuana, heroin, crack, crystal meth...you name it. Would you become a junkie if hard drugs were legal? People who become slaves to hard narcotics need medical treatment, not a prison cell. If we took the money we were spending on law enforcement and dedicated it to drug prevention/education programs and treatment centers, I bet the rates of use would decrease dramatically.
No,
Then it's not good enough reason to ban any other drug ... certainly not the nonlethal drug marijuana.
but do minors take a sip, yes more than likely to often. But if you had crack or heroin, would you worry about them taking a hit?
If I had it, I'd take proper precautions as I would with any other potentially dangerous item. Still no reason to ban anything for all adults.
What "observation"?
My own of coarse.
Care to tell us about these observations ... or are you here to talk to yourself?
And enacting Prohibition made that fortune. You need to brush up on your basic economics.
Really? Was it because he didn't inhale?
No, it was because his administration imprisoned more people for drug crimes than Reagan and Bush I combined.
Drug abuse surged during the Clinton years...
Which shows how well drug criminalization works.
Why do drug users need to "perpetuate an ever increasing market" any more than, say, Cheetos eaters?
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.