Sent to Pete Holmes, City Attorney, City of Seattle
http://www.seattle.gov/law/contact.htm

We need to decriminalize drugs, not renew attacks on marijuana users. This is clearly demonstrated by the results of now decades long programs running over several states in Europe (Netherlands, Portugal).

And even if you don't want to let clear data on the results of decriminalization on harm-reduction sway you, just consider what our failed "War on Drugs" has cost us. Drug use is still as prevalent as ever, even though we've locked up millions. And along with those locked up goes 50k a year, per head, plus lost productivity, and the hopes and dreams that a free human being can bestow upon society.

If the goal is to discourage unwanted behavior in downtown and Pioneer Square, go after public urination and defecation, aggressive pan-handling, and the actual behaviors that are a crime to society and to others. Develop legislation to humanely deal with the mentally insane, removing them from the streets when they are clearly dysfunctional and are unable to care for themselves. They deserve a better life than to be left on the street, unwashed, undernourished, covered in their own excrement, yelling and screaming at the world.

I've worked in Pioneer Square for years, and I'm in complete agreement that something needs to be done, but not marijuana.

THINK.

Show you're worthy of your position, and the responsibility we've given you. Come up with solutions that really address the problems.

Sent to Pete Holmes, City Attorney, City of Seattle
http://www.seattle.gov/law/contact.htm

We need to decriminalize drugs, not renew attacks on marijuana users. This is clearly demonstrated by the results of now decades long programs running over several states in Europe (Netherlands, Portugal).

And even if you don't want to let clear data on the results of decriminalization on harm-reduction sway you, just consider what our failed "War on Drugs" has cost us. Drug use is still as prevalent as ever, even though we've locked up millions. And along with those locked up goes 50k a year, per head, plus lost productivity, and the hopes and dreams that a free human being can bestow upon society.

If the goal is to discourage unwanted behavior in downtown and Pioneer Square, go after public urination and defecation, aggressive pan-handling, and the actual behaviors that are a crime to society and to others. Develop legislation to humanely deal with the mentally insane, removing them from the streets when they are clearly dysfunctional and are unable to care for themselves. They deserve a better life than to be left on the street, unwashed, undernourished, covered in their own excrement, yelling and screaming at the world.

I've worked in Pioneer Square for years, and I'm in complete agreement that something needs to be done, but not marijuana.

THINK.

Show you're worthy of your position, and the responsibility we've given you. Come up with solutions that really address the problems.

Here's Pete's position, unvarnished:

As you know, Section 21 of I-502 makes it a class 3 civil infraction--punishable by a relatively small fine, but no jail time or criminal record--to open or consume marijuana in view of the general public. It's within SPD's discretion to decide how to issue infractions, whether for jaywalking, speeding, or smoking marijuana on the sidewalk. Pete supports a measured system of warnings to encourage voluntary compliance with Section 21 before issuing citations.

Unlike criminal prosecutions, the City Attorney's Office only becomes involved with infraction citations if they're challenged in court, and Pete has promised that we will represent the City if I-502 infractions are issued and challenged (as we do with most other infractions). As Pete has already promised with all infractions, we will monitor for evidence of racially disproportionate application--as plainly occurred under the prior, wrong-headed policy of criminalized marijuana prohibition. This is why Pete further advocated in his letter to the Liquor Control Board for renters (and tourists) who might not have a private home where they can use marijuana without violating a rental agreement, suggesting options for legal nonresidential use including private smoking clubs and other models.

Under I-75, we distinguish I-502 infractions from criminal prosecutions for personal marijuana possession primarily because Seattle's voters overwhelmingly supported I-502--which created the "public use" infraction--long after voting for I-75. Civil infractions for public marijuana use weren't contemplated when I-75 passed over nine years ago. There are also concerns about exposing the general public to second hand marijuana smoke, distinct from I-75's concerns about using criminal law enforcement tools (arrest, prosecution, jail sentences, and criminal records) to target personal marijuana use.

Pete supports a proposed city ordinance mirroring the language of Section 21 of I-502 to keep the revenue from any infractions issued under this provision in Seattle, thus offsetting some of the local costs we'll incur implementing I-502. This is a common practice with other types of infractions, which often have parallel provisions under both state and city law. More importantly, Pete believes that as an elected official, he should back our SPD officers with a clear statement that ALL provisions of I-502 are to be enforced in Seattle, as we turn away from the ineffective, costly--and racist--past that was our War on Marijuana.

Washington voters changed the world in last November's vote to legalize, regulate and tax marijuana for adult recreational use. They deserve faithful implementation of all parts of I-502, ensuring that marijuana is both legal and regulated. We have already ended arrest and prosecution for possession, but before the first license to produce, process, and sell marijuana has been issued, we must remember that the world--not to mention the Federal Government--is also watching to see if we're serious about both legalizing AND regulating marijuana.

Kimberly Mills, Communications Director

For a liberal city, there seem to be a lot of nanny-state crypto-conservatives popping out of the woodwork lately.

@4: Nanny-state crypto-conservatives = Seattle "progressives."

Smoking anything within 25 feet of a bar, cafe, restaurant or music venue that is not open air - fine away!

Otherwise, No!

lessee here. smoking ordinance prohibits smoking anything inside bars and restaurants, you can't smoke weed it in public, lots of apartment buildings are non-smoking. whats the plan here? set up corrals in empty lots 1000' from schools?

or just, if you don't have a single family house, fuck you?

How many tickets do they give for smoking cigs in public?

So Hempfest would be raided?

This is the very essence of a Jim Crow law. If you give cops the "discretion", they will cite black/brown people and not white people.

meh, You know what the rules are and if you want to break them, then you run the risk of a ticket.
I know I'm not supposed to have an open container on the street, but if I'm having a beer at my house and then want to say hi to my neighbor I'll run that risk on the sidewalk. Most cops would probably ignore me, or warn me, but if I was piss drunk smashing bottles and ignoring them, then yeah...write a fucking ticket. Either way, it's still breaking a known law.
If you want to be able to smoke up and drink up on the sidewalk, then fight for that law to be changed. In the meantime there's not much to cry about if you choose to break the known laws and get a ticket.

I'm with 12 on this one. I love the weed. I also like to live within the confines of the rules given me, whether or not I actually find any value in them. I am a social animal and live in a society that has chosen how they want the society to be. Luckily, this society is a democratic society where I am free to share my opinion on laws and hope to change them if I wanted. But until they change, I knowingly put myself at risk for punishment when I don't follow them. Smoke your weed where ever you please, but don't cry when you get a ticket.

@12 "Most cops would probably ignore me, or warn me"

You must be white.

@14 spot on

"In plain sight" would seem to prohibit smoking on your own porch if it is within view of the sidewalk. Or your own apartment balcony, or even in your living room if the curtains are open. Is this the correct interpretation?

I could imagine plenty of room for "discretion" if the question is "how clearly can you see X?" which could be quite subjective. How thick *are* those hedges?

We don't need it. It's not a problem. This is making a problem where none exists and will be used to harass people. There are bigger problems, far bigger problems to concentrate on. And stop manufacturing criminals!

Seems like an acceptable compromise of a civilized society.

@17: moron. Using criminal justice system data to justify criminal justice system data? Hah, what could go wrong with that?

I won't go into different types of crime, but for drug use it's clear: blacks are no more likely to use illicit drugs than whites (and for certain drugs, such as marijuana, methamphetamine, and psychedelics, whites are far more likely than any other group to use them). Yet blacks are far more likely to be arrested, charged, prosecuted, and convicted than any other group.

@ "fight for that law to be changed" - that's exactly the point of the argument you're trying to undermine - the city ordinance should be opposed, changes in use of police discretion should be opposed, the state law should be changed. The substance of your argument is moot, and I SMH when I see people like you trot it out and then bury the correct choice in a bottom paragraph, as though they think that will save the false dilemma.

All that's left is your claim that you will not sympathize with people prosecuted under a law you tacitly admit is wrong - that only impeaches your character.

@ 12, @ 13.

And open container laws should go away also.

Why did the Stranger ever support him again?

Pass this and we'll pass a counter-measure to both toss this nonsense and curb the power of the city attorney if need be. Hey Pete: you're OUR employee. Get in line.

I mean, for God's sake -- don't we have more pressing matters than to try to de facto re-legislate a state decision? This is a pointless exercise.

@ 24 Don't be so sure, people may be fine with pot being legal but can also see this as sensible, no smoking in public, just like no drinking in public.

And why all the outcry its a freaking ticket, not like they are being arrested.

Good. Stinks like hell. And I'd love to see this extended to smoking, in general. Down with smoking...all kinds!

@23 Go live in Russia.

I am in favor of ticketing those who use marijuana out in public. Care should be taken to avoid bias, but this is a fairness issue. Just as pot smokers want the right to partake of marijuana, I wish to reserve the right NOT to partake of marijuana. I am an asthmatic, and marijuana smoke gives me terrible attacks. In addition, I do not choose to expose myself to the drug within the smoke or the carcinogens. Since the law has changed I cannot leave my apartment without going through clouds of the stuff. People smoke it in bus shelters (where it is illegal to smoke even cigarettes) and in parks and out at the Pride parade where I was hemmed in by people smoking and had to leave. Since many people will not choose to smoke far away from others as a matter of consideration, this must be a matter of legislation. I should be able to go outside without partaking of your cigarettes. I am also against forcing landlords to allow it--I shouldn't have to have it in my home. I know this is an unpopular stance to take in response to a paper that publishes recipes for marijuana, but I want people to know that not everyone is in favor of smoking everywhere all the time (and yes, if I sound angry, it's because I am. Tired of being smoked out of public)

@28

Colonel, Take us to TrollCon 1

I am all for reasonable restrictions on smoking pot in public, just like I am for smoking tobacco or drinking alcohol in public.

But "reasonable" means taking ALL the facts into consideration. Like:

There are thousands of venues in every city where people can legally consume alcohol - bars, restaurants, clubs, even churches.

There are no such venues for marijuana consumers. So, to enforce this restriction on them without allowing for these kinds of venues is obviously discrimination and persecution.

Also, smoking marijuana is just ONE way of consuming it. Vaporization does not produce smoke or any of the toxic substances created by smoke. I've never heard of anyone complaining about marijuana vapor. - What will be the regulations, if any, for those who vaporize marijuana?

These kinds of details are where the issue will rise or fall.