Lots of discussion of, and deliberation on, policies regarding our state’s legalization of marijuana in recent months – but here’s the first time we’ve seen this come up: An agenda just landed in the inbox for a special meeting of the City Council’s Housing, Human Services, Health, and Culture Committee this Friday at 2 pm. City Attorney Pete Holmes is scheduled to lead a 20-minute briefing titled “City Policies on Public Consumption of Marijuana.” We’re checking with the City Attorney’s Office for a preview; we’re wondering, though – what do YOU think those policies should be?
ADDED 1:19 PM: City Attorney’s Office spokesperson Kimberly Mills says this is related to a request for an ordinance to be drafted, and sends along a statement from Holmes:
“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.”
| 53 COMMENTS