HorsesAss.Org

The inevitable consequence of bad policy

by — ,

A couple of thoughts on Lee’s excellent and provocative post regarding the Department of Corrections’ abuse of probationers’ rights to use medical marijuana.

First, one would think that folks in the legacy media might be all over such a scandalous abuse of state power, if not for A) our media’s tendency to to view medical marijuana patients as a bunch of worthless, lying potheads, and B) their fear of covering any story that might cast media-beloved AG Rob McKenna in an unflattering light.

Second, if there’s anything that illustrates the incredible stupidity and casual cruelty of our drug policy, it’s how it so easily turned a sickly grandmother with a medical marijuana prescription and less than a quarter ounce of pot, into an enemy combatant in our so-called War on Drugs. Read Lee’s post; is there any moral or social justification for this poor woman’s arrest in Arizona, and subsequent abuse at the hands of the Washington DOC? And yet such abuse is the inevitable consequence of our current, twisted system.

What a waste of time and money, not to mention the cost in human suffering. So come on, let’s legalize marijuana already so we can let law enforcement focus on enforcing laws that actually make sense.

Comments

  2. 2

    IMO, it’s time for citizens to adopt the use of “jury nullification” when these cases go to court:

    From Wikipedia:

    Jury nullification occurs when a jury in a criminal case acquits a defendant despite the weight of evidence against him or her. [1] Widely, it is any rendering of a verdict by a trial jury which acquits a criminal defendant despite that defendant’s violation of the letter of the law—that is, of an official rule, and especially a legislative enactment. Jury nullification need not disagree with the instructions by the judge—which concerns what the law (common or otherwise) is—but it may rule contrary to an instruction that the jury is required to apply the “law” to the defendant in light of the establishment of certain facts.

    Strictly speaking, a jury verdict which rules contrary to the letter of the law pertains only to the particular case before it; however, if a pattern of identical verdicts develops in response to repeated attempts to prosecute a statutory offense, it can have the de facto effect of invalidating the statute. Jury nullification is thus a means for the public to express opposition to an unwanted legislative enactment.

  3. 3

    @2 Why not? We have jury nullification in “castle” cases. If a homeowner shoots an intruder, he’ll get off, no matter what the circumstances. Several years ago a homeowner in my neighbor caught three boys inside his house. They ran. He shot a 15-year-old boy in the back while he was climbing the backyard fence to escape, killing him. The shooter got off scot free.

    This shooting wasn’t remotely justified under Washington law. It wasn’t self-defense, and no Washington law allows use of lethal force to stop a fleeing felon, let alone a juvenile. But thanks to jury nullification, you can’t prosecute homeowners who kill kids, the law and all pretense of civilization be damned.

    If child killers get off, why shouldn’t medical marijuana patients get off on technical violations of other states’ marijuana laws, too? It doesn’t make any sense.

    And when laws, and law enforcement, don’t make sense people disrespect the law and those who enforce them, which isn’t good for anyone.

  4. 4

    @2

    This is NOT a jury case. The woman is a convict being supervised by our state. Since she broke their laws, if WA state can not carry out her probation, then I assume she gets extradited to Az.

    Also,most of the outrage here by Lee seems rather one sided. I do not doubt that officers can be impolite but his reaction seem to go way beyond that. I am also confused about hsi description of an international border between California and Az. Is teh border patrol allowed to stop cars crossinf American borders? Thgat would seem to be a pretty serioous violation of the constitution!

    As for the WA state doctor he cites, it might he worth hearing from the doc as well as from Lee. Marinol is pretty much the same thing in terms of psychoactivity as MJ. If the medical marijuana law allows this doctor to over-ride a physician because he, as the physician in the prison system, has responsibility for the patients then his statement is reasonable.

    Finally, as I have stated many times, there is NO medical justification for inhaling either MJ ot tobacco. If patients need THC they should get it in a safe way.

  5. 5

    I doubt the McKenna angle has much to do with it, outside of editorial boards.

    @2

    Totally.

  6. 6

    Rep. John Murtha, a Democrat who drew the wrath of conservatives for opposing Bush’s invasion of Iraq, has died. He was 77. Murtha was the first Vietnam veteran elected to Congress.

  7. 7

    @4

    While this specific case might not qualify, using jury nullification might be a good way to deal with simple possession cases.

  8. 8

    I am also confused about hsi description of an international border between California and Az. Is teh border patrol allowed to stop cars crossinf American borders? Thgat would seem to be a pretty serioous violation of the constitution!

    Reading comprehension?

    As Lee points out, the Border Patrol can make car-stops anywhere within 100 miles of an international border. It need not be while the car is crossing that international border. Nor while it’s crossing a state border.

    In fact, the Border Patrol could gratuitously randomly stop you as you drive between your house and UW. Any day, or every day. If you think that violates the Constitution, take it up with SCOTUS.

  10. 10

    Sad to see My servant John pass on. He had a better life here than he well have in the beyond. … but then only those who suffer here do not benefit from passing on.

  11. 11

    @9 .. Challenge:

    If the law is as Lee and you claim, than show me a link.

    I suspect the law allows vehicles that have crossed the border to be stopped within 100 miles. As a boater, that is pretty much the law the USCG follows .. indeed the coasties have confiscated boats in boat yards near Seattle based on such evidence and then drilled enough holes to ruin the boat.

    I will gladly join in an effort to get the ACLU to go after any such violation of the Constitution.

  12. 12

    @11
    I’m on my Blackberry, but the 100 mile rule is in the Patriot Act, and it allows for Border Patrol to set up roadblocks anywhere within 100 miles of an international border. Hopefully someone can post a link (very difficult to do from my phone).

  13. 13

    But marijuana makes the baby Jesus cry! Scotch and Camel cigarettes on the other hand make baby Jesus just smile and giggle. End of arguments.

  14. 14

    @12
    Correcting my last comment, the 100 mile rule is not in the Patriot Act, but it was a post-9/11 rule.

  15. 15

    @14 Lee

    When you can, can you find this?

    I thiought I remembered as being the same as the rule that applies to boats .. except we can be stopped anywhere after crossing the border.

    Does it apply to vehicles that have not crossed the border?

  16. 16

    SJ, here’s something I found in GAO-09-824, an analysis of Border Patrol effectiveness from just last year (emphasis added):

    U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), a component within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), is responsible for managing, controlling, and securing our nation’s borders, at and between the ports of entry. Between the ports of entry, the U.S. Border Patrol, a component of CBP, is responsible for detecting and preventing the illegal entry of persons and contraband, including terrorists and weapons of mass destruction. To achieve these goals on the southwest border, the Border Patrol has implemented a multilayered enforcement strategy. This strategy includes the use of traffic checkpoints generally located from 25 to 100 miles of the border, where Border Patrol agents screen vehicles for any illegal aliens or contraband that were able to cross the border undetected.[Footnote 3] Some of these checkpoints have a permanent structure with off-highway inspection lanes and technology to facilitate inspection and convenience, while other checkpoints have temporary infrastructure in the form of trailers and generators that are generally used on secondary roads with low traffic volume.

    Authority at Border Patrol Checkpoints:

    Border Patrol agents at checkpoints have legal authority that agents do not have when patrolling areas away from the border. The United States Supreme Court ruled that Border Patrol agents may stop a vehicle at fixed checkpoints for brief questioning of its occupants even if there is no reason to believe that the particular vehicle contains illegal aliens.[Footnote 10] The Court further held that Border Patrol agents “have wide discretion” to refer motorists selectively to a secondary inspection area for additional brief questioning.[Footnote 11] In contrast, the Supreme Court held that Border Patrol agents on roving patrol may stop a vehicle only if they have reasonable suspicion that the vehicle contains aliens who may be illegally in the United States — a higher threshold for stopping and questioning motorists than at checkpoints.[Footnote 12] The constitutional threshold for searching a vehicle is the same, however, and must be supported by either consent or probable cause, whether in the context of a roving patrol or a checkpoint search.[Footnote 13]

    So, as long as it’s at a “checkpoint”, the Border Patrol can stop any, for any (or no) reason, and then search the vehicle if they can gin up some sort of “probable cause”.

  17. 17

    Grrrr, no edit function.

    Pretend that the last paragraph above actually says:

    So, as long as it’s at a “checkpoint”, the Border Patrol can stop any vehicle, for any (or no) reason, and then search the vehicle if they can gin up some sort of “probable cause”. No need to assume that the car came over the border, nor that there’s an undocumented alien in it.

  18. 18

    @16
    And it’s worth noting that the vast majority of cases that come out of these roadblocks have nothing to do with illegal immigration. They are petty drug cases. In fact, they were doing this on the peninsula until people started to raise a stink about it.

  19. 19

    @16

    The constitutional threshold for searching a vehicle is the same, however, and must be supported by either consent or probable cause, whether in the context of a roving patrol or a checkpoint search.[Footnote 13]

    What does this mean? What was the basis fcor the search? I guess the issue may be the dog? If she was stopped at a BP checkpoint and the dog sniffed MJ, that may be enough to justify a search. Also, remember she WAS in violation of AZ law.

    Suppose the dog sniffed an explosive and they searched for that. Wouldn’t be as legal?

    Or suppose the dog can’t tell MJ from explosives, the BP does a search and finds MJ ANS stolen money from a bank robbery.

    I guess the issue here is the existence of the checkpoints? Are you arguing the BP should not exist or that any findings by the bP should not be actionable is the findings are not relevant to finding illegal aliens?

  22. 22

    @21
    Sadly, a recent court ruling affirmed that our state’s medical marijuana users can still be arrested, but they can show their physician’s authorization in court in order to have the charges dropped. Many jurisdictions don’t make medical marijuana patients go through this, but some still do.

  23. 23

    Border Patrol didn’t care what the state law was in the shrub years.

    Searching for illegal aliens apparently means drug sniffing dogs-I think that aspect has been toned down by Obama.

    It’s weird to think that driving around parts of this country is like driving in mainland mexico where around the corner there could be a federale checkpoint ready to arrest your ass for a joint.

  24. 24

    @23
    It’s weird to think that driving around parts of this country is like driving in mainland mexico where around the corner there could be a federale checkpoint ready to arrest your ass for a joint.

    Except that in Mexico, such a small amount of marijuana can’t get you arrested any more. We’re actually worse than that now.

  26. 26

    Goldy said:

    “So come on, let’s legalize marijuana already so we can let law enforcement focus on enforcing laws that actually make sense.”

    I’m in total agreement with you on the marijuana issue, Goldy: time to legalize, regulate and tax marijuana. It’s time to finally end Prohibition!

  27. 27

    I wonder if anyone here would like to talk more specifically about legalizing MJ?

    1. If we want to legalize it as a psychoactive, shouldn’t we legalize THC instead? MJ is, after all a plant. It can be used to grow almost anything .. esp now.

    2. If we legalize MJ itself, what sort of regulations would we want to have?

    eg .. should it be treated like tobacco with rules about where it can be smoked?
    …. should composition of legal MJ be regulated the way we regulate food stuffs?
    … would legalization mean that THC and other cannabinoids could legally be used in ove the counter medicines? food?

Can’t Bring Yourself to Type the Word “Ass”?

Eager to share our brilliant political commentary and blunt media criticism, but too genteel to link to horsesass.org? Well, good news, ladies: we also answer to HASeattle.com, because, you know, whatever. You're welcome!

Follow Goldy

[iire_social_icons]

HA Commenting Policy

It may be hard to believe from the vile nature of the threads, but yes, we have a commenting policy. Comments containing libel, copyright violations, spam, blatant sock puppetry, and deliberate off-topic trolling are all strictly prohibited, and may be deleted on an entirely arbitrary, sporadic, and selective basis. And repeat offenders may be banned! This is my blog. Life isn’t fair.