

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

======
sneak
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.

~~~
zachrose
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?

~~~
leehuffman
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.

~~~
wilfra
That'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.

~~~
glesica
Obama has run his final campaign. Sure, he's going to worry about his legacy
now, but there's no such thing as "political suicide" for him any more. Just
sayin'.

~~~
mattmanser
There is for his party though.

------
dandelany
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
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.

------
shawn-butler
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.

~~~
veidr
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-butler
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.

~~~
veidr
I totally agree with you that it is not good law.

I think it is good _policing_ , though. Seattle has a pretty great police
department, especially for a city so big.

Now, the cops deciding how and what laws to enforce doesn't always work out
well, but as a practical matter that is part of what police departments have
to do in every city, and Seattle's police seem to do it particularly well.

------
aaronbrethorst
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-...](http://www.geekwire.com/2012/diego-marijuana-
bill-gates-bud-legal-startup-premium/) — 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
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.

~~~
pimeys
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.

~~~
digitalengineer
As 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
Waiting for the summer again to be able to do that...

~~~
agilebyte
Summer... I think we had that one in the UK at some point

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

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

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

------
Mz
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.)

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

~~~
Mz
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.

~~~
illuminate
"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
My 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.

~~~
illuminate
Can you offer a more descriptive and less evasive answer? I'm not trying to be
rude (and not a smoker), I'm honestly curious as to what you would do
"different".

Most states have moved to blocking smoking in public areas to differing
extents, the more blatant exceptions to this tend to be areas like Las Vegas
where establishments pay fines for the repeat violations of their customers.

~~~
Mz
Sorry. There is no intent to be evasive.

The thing I am reacting negatively to is not the current laws concerning
smoking but specifically the public announcement that they will only issues
warnings. That is practically an invitation to people who want to be defiant
assholes to do whatever they want.

Laws are merely one tool for trying to keep the peace. And the reality is that
if you actually have to enforce the law (overly much), you have already kind
of failed. I struggle with how to say this clearly, because any sweeping
statement is going to be wrong and invite attack and a lot of people are very
uncomfortable with how things actually work. But, basically, you announce what
is illegal knowing some people will politely do as they are told and then you
put in place just enough consequences to act as a deterent to folks who are
less inclined to simply do as they are told. Of course, some people will break
the law for various reasons. Either they didn't know or it is a poorly
designed law that is nearly impossible to obey or...whatever. However if
things are done right, there will only be a moderate need for active
enforcement. But an announcement like this amounts to a public invitation to
do as you please. Some people will do it just because of this invitation, just
like some seventeen year olds with college ID's will drink because some places
will take a college ID at the door. It is a loophole and some people will take
childish glee in that space where it kind of is forbidden but really is not.

That is the piece I hope California handles better. I also hope that the fact
that there is medical marijuana here already will help prevent the "must get
drunk on my 21st birthday" style of reaction that you so often see when things
finally get legalized. I believe that drugs and alcohol tend to attract people
who somehow benefit physically. In California, if you really need marijuana
and can prove it, it is already legal. Folks who are merely recreational users
are going to be less rabid about wanting to fight for and exercise their right
to toke. I think it is the people who strongly benefit (medically in some way)
who are the most vehement. And those people are mostly already okay to smoke
it here. So I am hoping that helps make it a non-event with people happy to
keep it behind closed doors.

------
snogglethorpe
Seems pretty reasonable...

