200 arrests for MJ?

Why aren't there 200 arrests for Driving While Cellphone?

Obviously needs to pay attention to what we the voters SAID.

Reading this kind of language makes my brain hurt, but doesn't that chart show that Carr is correct when he says that he's not prosecuting pot-only charges as much? That an increasing percentage of pot-related charges are for "pot plus", i.e., "pot and a bar fight"? That's what I see in column D, that it's gone from 55% to 24% for pot-only.

Maybe I'm reading it wrong; I'm a little groggy. But if that's the case, then I'm not that outraged. I'm not a fan of marijuana prosecutions, but I AM a fan of prosecuting lowlife scum offenses like bar fights.

I agree with @2. Look at column D.

What Fnarf said.

@ 2 and 3) Indeed, a lower rate of pot-only cases were filed after the measure passed--it worked--but that appears to be a result of police referring a drastically lower rate of pot-only cases. But overall, Carr went after pot cases at a higher rate than he had before.

@5 - From Column D, it looks like pot-only cases prosecuted dropped 5-10%. Is it your assertion that is not a big enough drop?

Or are you saying that they shouldn't be tacking pot charges on to other crimes they're trying to prosecute?

What I find to be more interesting about the full report is the way that this law affected different races.

Amongst males:
In 2002, 62% of filed cases were against white people and 32% were against black people.

In 2006, it had switched to 43% against white people and 56% against black people.

Without more info regarding how many of these were "marijuana only," it's hard to draw conclusions from that, though.

Obviously we need to crack down on Pot plus Starbucks offenses.

I mean, chocolate plus MJ obviously poses a societal risk, even if it's much much lower than using your cellphone while driving.

I think it is high time we have an initiative to fully legalize marijuana. What do you say Dominic? Can you head this one up?

Looks to me like marijuana only charges are up (by 5) and total filings are up by 15%

I don't think you can fully brush off Fnarf's point (it pains me to say that). I'm not a Carr supporter, but it's clear that the percentage of pot-only cases has gone down. From the prosecutor's stand point, It makes sense that they'd file the pot charges on DUI or assault cases. If you have more counts, there's more room for negotiation. And just because they tack on a pot charge doesn't mean the defendant actually pleads guilty to that charge. What might be interesting is to see if any of the pot-only cases result in jail time (above the 1 mandatory day).

@16 ftw.

The problem is that we don't know, @18. But I'd expect to see an increase in arrests for littering or graffiti if it were truly the lowest priority.

One question arises: is it truly the City Attorney, or is it that the cops are ignoring the law and focus on pot instead, because they can smell it? Could be the cops are the problem.

If you look at the numbers, there is approx 1 pot-only case/week that police refer in to Carr's office (some of which aren't filed). If cops were "focusing" on the marijuana because they can smell it, you'd see MUCH higher numbers.

I don't fully understand why you'd expect to see an increase in grafitti arrests (nothing says it's supposed to stay proportional to other crimes), but littering generally isn't a crime (unless you're littering something like a fridge).

@21 - yes, littering is a crime. Especially when done from a moving vehicle. Check your driver's pamphlet.

Because the number of filings are going down (yay! laws work!), it shouldn't be surprising that the percentage of prosecutions are increasing, particularly if the post-law filings represent more serious, more prosecutable offenses.

@23: It's the same offense in all cases: misdemeanor possession of marijuana.

But, like Fnarf said, a higher and higher percentage of these charges are being filed alongside other charges, meaning that not only the total number but the overall percentage of possession-only charges are going down. I'm not a Carr fan, but this seems like a pretty weak hit piece.

What are those other crimes that lead police to searching someone and finding marijuana in his pocket? All bar fights? That's the only example I've ever heard Tom Carr give. Really -- in what other cases do the police just happen across marijuana on someone?

And when they find it, given that the additional charge will come with additional cost of investigation and prosecution, and given that we have a finite amount of resources and plenty of other things to which to allocate them, why does that marijuana even go in the report? Oh, because they can't ignore it? Do you suppose that if a cop caught a purse snatcher, he'd bother to report that the guy jaywalked in the process? So why not ignore the pot in a similar manner since we've made it abundantly clear that nothing is less worthy of our police's time?

The answer, I think, is that we haven't faithfully deprioritized investigating and punishing adults for personal possession of marijuana. Now it's mostly used as leverage for prosecution of other charges.

No really, Dominic, what is your relationship, both dollars and time spent, with the Pete Holmes campaign, and does The Stranger report your in-kind contribution?

@26: Yo Yo, if you think Dominic's interest in and reporting on Tom Carr's general disregard for the law when it comes to marijuana prosecution deprioritization began sometime after Holmes' campaign began (or for that matter, after he began working for The Stranger, you'd be well off to do some research before making further insinuations of the sort you did here.

I volunteered for the I-75 campaign, attended more of the Marijuana Policy Review Panel meetings than most of the panel members did, watched Carr tell the panel that he would not and could not abide by SMC 12A.20.060, read the inaccurate statistics he distributed (that Dominic later exposed as such), heard him on the radio yesterday making more dubious claims, transcribed the interview, and passed it on to The Stranger. Do you think I should report my efforts as an in-kind contribution to the Holmes campaign?

@22--It's not really an important issues, but littering isn't a crime. It's an infraction.

@25--They probably would mention the jaywalking (or at least describe the facts in a way that one could deduce that someone's jaywalking), but the prosecutor generally doesn't ADD an infraction to a criminal case. Even if officers don't want someone to be prosecuted for marijuana, if they find pot on someone they're arresting for another charge, they really do need to include it in the report. It's generally frowned upon for cops to write incomplete reports, and when they do, they get grilled in court. In that situation, it's not the cop that chooses to bring charges--it's the city attorney's office.

And on your other question, any crime that results in someone being arrested (even if they're released at the scene) could involve finding marijuana on someone. Vandalism, assault, DUI, trespassing, shoplifting....

I wish we'd just legalize it. Until we do, we'll wind up in this weird position where it's still illegal, but not a priority.