The Politics of Pot: Article 2

LEGALIZED POT? DON'T HOLD YOUR BREATH.

As if coveting our water and envying our dot-com fortunes weren't enough,
those Eastern Washington wheat farmers also don't want us smoking pot.

The overriding powers of state law will continue to keep pot illegal in
Seattle, despite the appearance of a city initiative aimed at chilling
enforcement efforts against casual tokers. The recently introduced
Initiative 73 would basically serve as a policy statement that citizens
want the cops to focus on solving real crimes, not hassle pot smokers.

But, as cities have been prohibited since 1989 from passing more liberal
local drug statutes, that's about all I-73 would do. Beyond directing the
city to make the enforcement of laws pertaining to the possession of small
quantities of marijuana the city's lowest public safety priority, the
initiative would also remove marijuana prosecutions from Seattle Municipal
Court and set a legal definition for the phrase "60-day supply of
marijuana," a standard created by the state's 1998 medical marijuana
initiative.

Dominic Holden of the Sensible Seattle Coalition (I-73's formal sponsor)
says that, while the city can't unilaterally decriminalize marijuana
possession, the initiative would represent the democratic voice of
Seattleites who favor a tolerance policy on pot smoking. "It gives our
police officers and our prosecutors the ability to focus on the real
crimes, instead of arresting and prosecuting people who smoke a little bit
of marijuana," he says.

The city of Seattle once had the state's most lenient pot laws. A 1975
statute made possession of 40 grams or less a noncriminal violation (the
equivalent of a parking ticket). Drug war-minded state legislators were
outraged; in 1989, they voted to force all cities to enforce the Washington
law, which designates marijuana possession as a misdemeanor, punishable by
a day in jail and a $250 fine for a first offense. Seattleites still
grumble about the slight.

"It's basically wasting resources-- arresting, prosecuting, and locking up
people who aren't doing any harm to society," says Doug Honig of the
American Civil Liberties Union of Washington (ACLU-W), which aided in the
drafting of I-73. "It's not the way the city should be spending its resources."

Andy Ko, director of the ACLU-W's Drug Policy Reform Project, speculates
that removing pot possession cases from the Municipal Court could save the
city money, but it appears that the state Legislature has beaten us to the
punch there as well. According to Richard Greene of the Seattle Law
Department, a 1997 state law mandates that cities pay prosecution and
incarceration costs for nonfelony crimes, regardless of where they are
prosecuted (under I-73, King County District Court would assume
jurisdiction for pot possession cases).

On the bright side, I-73 seems a shoo-in to make it onto the ballot.
Organizers should easily be able to gather the approximately 18,000
signatures needed at Hempfest and Bumbershoot, and Seattle voters are
unlikely to vote down the rare ballot issue that doesn't seek to raise
their taxes.

But real change in marijuana laws can only come at the state level. Last
year, Alaskans voted down a sweeping initiative that would have legalized
personal use of marijuana while freeing convicts jailed on marijuana
charges. In 1999, Microsoft millionaire Bruce McKinney financed a
short-lived state-initiative campaign that would have seen marijuana sold
alongside Jack Daniels at state liquor stores. However, that initiative
effort stalled, and McKinney disappeared as if in a puff of smoke.

Holden says McKinney is still an active player in the marijuana reform
community, but adds that a state initiative would require gathering ten
times as many signatures [as a city initiative] and running a major
political campaign --a daunting task for a largely volunteer-run movement.
A state initiative will come some day, he says, but for now, "we wanted to
focus our efforts where we knew the voters would be right behind us."