
Seattle vacates hundreds of marijuana charges going back 30 years - MilnerRoute
https://www.theroot.com/seattle-vacates-hundreds-of-marijuana-possession-charge-1825622917
======
seattlejuana
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.

------
pmoriarty
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.

~~~
HarryHirsch
_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.

~~~
pmoriarty
_" Crime in the pursuit of drug addiction exists, meth- and cocaine-induced
paranoia exists. There is a public health problem mixed in there."_

Does that outweigh the whirlpool of violence that the War on Drugs has stirred
up by its very existence? All the money funneled in to organized crime by the
War on Drugs, enabling and incentivizing them to kill their rivals and corrupt
the judicial and political system? All the people killed by police during drug
raids? The decades of life wasted in prison by hundreds of thousands of
nonviolent drug offenders where they are tortured, raped, killed, or groomed
in to far more serious criminals? All the families broken up, devastating them
emotionally and financially? All the children left to be raised by just one of
the parents or made parentless when their parents are imprisoned or killed?

Crimes committed due to drug addiction are often committed in order to get
money for the next fix. It's the illegality of drugs that keeps the prices so
incredibly high that they're unaffordable to poor people. That need not be the
case if they are made legal.

Cocaine paranoia is a medical issue, and it and other health issues related to
drug use should be treated medically, not by throwing people in jail -- which
doesn't work anyway. Drug use is rife in prison.

The War on Drugs is an abject failure that makes the failure of Prohibition
pale in comparison.

~~~
viraptor
There's more nuance here to discuss. One is throwing people in jail - you can
still make production and distribution illegal while keeping the use itself
legal. Another one is that availability of various drugs allows people to make
relatively safer choices - see the difference in opioid addictions between
states with different pot laws.

We can still jail people actively distributing/producing highly addictive
drugs, while at the same time giving mostly free choice and helping rather
than harming (potential) users. Monitoring actual results in the society can
affect the thresholds of what's done.

~~~
pmoriarty
_" We can still jail people actively distributing/producing highly addictive
drugs"_

But that doesn't work, and leads to all the abuses and downsides of the War on
Drugs, like encouraging and enabling organized crime, etc.

Alcohol and nicotine are some of the most addictive drugs out there, and yet
we don't jail people for distributing or producing those.

Food is also highly addictive and there's a huge obesity epidemic in the US,
and yet no one is suggesting imposing jail terms on the companies that make
food or entice people to eat it.

Skydiving and other extreme sports are often described as highly addictive and
are obviously dangerous, yet no one is trying to prohibit them. It's widely
recognized that if people want to engage in those risky activities and other
people want to provide them, it's a matter best left to the consenting adults
engaging in those activities -- with perhaps some regulation to help make them
as safe as possible.

~~~
viraptor
> Alcohol and nicotine are some of the most addictive drugs out there, and yet
> we don't jail people for distributing or producing those.

They are regulated to an extent. You will get fined for selling to minors, for
example. Same for smuggling cigarettes and alcohol. And for misleading
advertisements and fake medical research. I don't think those fines go far
enough.

> Skydiving and other extreme sports are often described as highly addictive
> and are obviously dangerous, yet no one is trying to prohibit them.

I'm not sure "highly addictive" works here. Do you have withdrawal symptoms if
you stop? Does it make you unable to function and think clearly for a while?
Is your judgement affected enough that you'd harm yourself or someone else to
participate in the sport again? This is a "fun hobby" that will make you sad
if you don't do it again, not addiction.

~~~
pmoriarty
_" They [alcohol and nicotine] are regulated to an extent. You will get fined
for selling to minors, for example."_

Legalization does not mean lack of any regulation. Alcohol and nicotine, which
are legal, are regulated, as you point out. So are prescription (and even non-
prescription) drugs. I am not opposed to forbidding sale of legal drugs to
minors, though it's not perfectly clear cut (the age limit is particularly
tricky to set, and often minors manage to get their hands on alcohol,
nicotine, and other drugs anyway).

 _" Do you have withdrawal symptoms if you stop [skydiving]?"_

Actually, I have read of people who did feel like their depression was
alleviated through participation in extreme sports like skydiving,[1] and who
feel depressed if they don't go again for extended periods of time. So I think
a psychological addiction (much like addiction to food where similar effects
are seen) can apply.

 _" Does it make you unable to function and think clearly for a while? Is your
judgement affected enough that you'd harm yourself or someone else to
participate in the sport again?"_

Depression can affect your thought process, and can lead to harm of self or
others, so yes, I think those are real risks of quitting for some people who
get relief from depression through participation in extreme sports (or other
perfectly legal activities which either help them to cope or alleviate their
depression).

[1] - "Skydiving Cured My Depression" \-
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16837748](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16837748)

~~~
viraptor
Sorry, this still seems like a completely different situation to me.
Depression was already there.

Heavy addiction: you have X problems, you escape via addiction, now you have
X+addiction problems, you stop, you still have X+addiction+withdrawal.

Hobby: you have X problems, you find something that helps you with depression,
you have X-1 problems, you stop, you have X problems again.

~~~
pmoriarty
They are not the same, but they share two key properties: their danger and
potential addictiveness.

Most people would not even seriously consider making extreme sports illegal,
despite their danger and potential addictiveness, but it's those very same
properties of some illegal drugs that are most frequently cited as the primary
reasons for making them illegal.

If those are honestly the main reasons that so many drugs are illegal, then
why not make extreme sports illegal as well, for those very same reasons?

------
donarb
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-a...](http://cannabisdestiny.com/seattle-hempfest-doritos-priced-
at-50-on-ebay/)

~~~
api_or_ipa
> 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.

------
Fezzik
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?

~~~
loeg
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-
init...](http://norml.org/news/2003/09/18/seattle-voters-approve-initiative-
making-marijuana-enforcement-city-s-lowest-priority)

------
psyc
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.

------
rococode
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
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
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
I meant legalizing the sale of the drug, not usage. I don't think addicts
should be considered criminals.

~~~
loeg
Criminalizing the supply chain has disadvantages, too. The government loses
sales tax revenue and criminal organizations make large profits. Quality isn't
controlled and is often dangerously polluted (e.g., fentanyl being sold as
heroin).

Also, not all drug users are addicts.

------
guylepage3
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. :)

------
tzury
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

      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.

------
dogruck
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
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
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
>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.

~~~
firic
There are many things that I wish that I wouldn't have to pay for. I would not
pay for many of the bureaucratic waste that happens in Washington. But,
unfortunately taxes do not work like that. All one can do is vote for
different laws and convince others to agree with them. In the end the majority
elects the politicians that make the rules.

~~~
DINKDINK
firic: "[I'm ok with other people subsidizing my believe that ethical, two
party consent should be imprisoned]"

~~~
firic
Yes, just like I am okay outlawing duelling to the death, gambling to the
death and selling yourself to slavery. Even if both parties consent.

