Washington's Supreme Court Decriminalized Drug Possession Statewide. What Happens Next?

Comments

1

pragmatic Judges
are thee Best.
Dudes.

let the Healing
Begin

oh and aren't they gonna (finally!) Outlaw
Alcohol* or is that just a very silly Rumor?

*so much Carnage
so much Damage
an addiction rate
of what is it?
15%? too
Much.

2

"In a statement, Rep. Davis said the Court's decision 'gives renewed urgency to the conversation about our state’s response to untreated substance use disorder,' and added that it's 'important that we build out a response to substance use disorder that truly works—a robust and fully funded continuum of care ranging from outreach to treatment to recovery support services.'"

Bingo BINGO!
perhaps (allegedly) former
Drug Pushers (on a Continental Scale!)
might be Urged to lend a hand to clean up the
Mess they oh so Charitably contributed to. btw, they're
all Billionaires so it's not like they're Hurting, not too much.

3

“Hundreds and hundreds, if not thousands and thousands, of violent offenders–murderers, rapists, child molesters–will now be released onto our streets earlier," - R. Dunn
Meh, they are only looking for rich people to torture.

4

Get all the charges removed now, before they come up with an excuse to add them back, and clear out your records.

which they will, because the whole point is to find ways to crush black and brown people.

5

pretty much nothing i guess, at least in Seattle. the cops don't arrest obvious drug sales/possession/etc as it was anyway. if they did, the junkie hits the street next day so, same same.

6

We all high five the woman who got off on the defense we all try to use when we are caught? Lol, "wasn't mine!"
Or maybe her attorney, they da real mvp.

7

Why have any laws at all. Everyone just do what feels right to you.

8

@7:

That's called "anarchy", which is just the flip-side of Libertarianism, but with a somewhat higher degree of social controls, and without the unrestrained "laissez faire" economic constructs . In both cases, the foundational basis is that an individual has a higher degree of freedom to make choices - even bad ones - so long as they don't negatively impact the choices other people can make. Personally, I'm not philosophically opposed to anarchy, since it's predicated on the concept that the social group will tolerate anti-social behaviors until they prove detrimental to the group as a whole, at which point collectively they'll do something about it. So, for example, no one would be prevented from taking whatever drugs they preferred, that's their choice; but the social unit might not tolerate someone stealing from others in order to support an addiction.

9

I have to correct the author of this article when he states that possession of only small amounts of drugs is legal. There is no drug possession law. You can possess as much as you want, and it would be on the prosecuting attorney to prove that your possession was with the intent to deliver. This also means that if your pending charge is dismissed, you can go back to the police department and demand your legal property (drugs) be returned to you. They might belly ache about it being illegal federally, but they had to return weed to defendants when it became legal.

I, personally, do not believe that hard drugs should be legal. I believe that the consequence of legalization will be prolonged addiction and more overdoses. Possession maybe doesn't need to be a felony, but it shouldn't be accepted as par for the course. Hopefully, I am wrong and the gov't will come up with a new plan that works.

10

@9 - No way the cops are giving anyone's smack back to them.

The first difference with weed was that it was already pretty clear that the Feds were not going to crack down on it in states that legalized it.

The second difference is that we (and other states) ACTUALLY legalized pot. Not what happened here. The Court never said that possessing drugs was OK or that it should not be illegal. The problem with the law was that it lacked an intent or knowledge element - they ruled that by criminalizing conduct that you might not even know you were doing, the state had exceeded its police powers. If the law had required that you knew you were possessing the drugs to be convicted, the case would have gone the other way.