RotoGuru Politics Forum

View the Forum Registry

XML Get RSS Feed for this thread


Self-edit this thread


0 Subject: Seattle voters to vote on I-75 next month

Posted by: Seattle Zen
- Donor [55343019] Fri, Aug 22, 2003, 19:45

Regulars to this board know that I am counsel and board member of Initiative 75 which would make the arrest of adults with marijuana in their possesion the lowest enforcement priority of the Seattle Police Dept.

Things are heating up. The initiative is on the September 16th primary ballot and is now starting to get some press attention. Here are two columns recently on i-75 in our local paper.

Winking at pot use is risky business

and Ms. Paynter's column the next day

E-mail attack: Readers read a lot into pot column

For those of you in the Seattle area, you might want to attend our Rick Steves fundraiser on Tuesday.



Marijuana policy reform is a mainstream issue out here in the Emerald City. The League of Woman Voters not only endorsed the initiative, but they have written a six page argument in favor of it that is an outstanding read: An Analysis of I-75, Sensible Marijuana Law Enforcement

The King County Bar Association and every Democratic Congressional committee has endorsed us.

I'll write a longer piece describing my experiences from being so deeply involved in this campaign when it is done. I'll simply say that in this day and age, where candidates and campaigns' merit is measured in how successfully they raise money, I can gladly state that we have raised over $120,000. It boggles my mind.

Here are a couple of stories about last weekend's Hempfest

Pro-pot initiative gets political push at high-flying Hempfest

Why do they ALWAYS include pictures of some chick in leaf sunglasses? Couldn't they at least take a picture of a total BABE to increase attendance next year?

Political aroma detected at Hempfest: I-75 supporters find backing

These pot pun headlines are getting tiring. James K. Polk, I'm looking in your direction! :)
Only the 50 most recent replies are currently shown. Click on this text to display hidden posts as well.
23Baldwin
      ID: 111112015
      Wed, Sep 17, 2003, 18:10
I raise my double vanilla cappaccino in your general direction SZ. 8]
24Seattle Zen
      Donor
      ID: 55343019
      Wed, Sep 17, 2003, 20:50
John Walters, the White House “drug czar,” came to Seattle backed by a platoon of bodyguards—and unwittingly admitted that the feds’ 60 Years War on marijuana didn’t have the grip on the American public that it once did. Walters decried general drug use (heroin, methamphetamine, and cocaine), and then he got down to the real reason for his trip: to inveigh against Seattle’s I-75.

Walters called I-75 the result of “living in the past and ignorance, a wink and a nod, ‘Let’s play dumb’” on marijuana. It’s not the first time Walters has traveled outside the D.C. Beltway and tried to bigfoot a local measure that would soften, however imperceptibly, marijuana laws. He did it last fall in Nevada, and earlier this year officials from his Office of National Drug Control Policy campaigned against a local measure in Missouri. In both cases, he won.

But the Emerald City is harder slogging for the czar than the Silver State.

This week, the measure was winning overwhelmingly before all absentee votes were counted. Surprisingly, Seattle’s media, even the usually pliant television news, largely declined to help Walters make his case to the public. Only KOMO-TV sent a cameraperson to the press conference, but it didn’t air any footage that evening. Other than that, there were only a few print and radio reporters, and their subsequent coverage was hardly the level of drum banging Walters’ visits have generated elsewhere.

But the Seattle media also missed a shift in the pot war. You had to listen hard, but it was there: Deep in his remarks about I-75, Walters made an admission you wouldn’t have heard from federal drug enforcement officials even during the Clinton administration.

“The real issue is should we legalize marijuana,” Walters said. “Let’s have a debate about that.”

Excellent article. I'm tickled that Walters came to town and we still won. I'm shocked that he even mentions the word "debate" when discussing legalizing marijuana, but it is obvious that he doesn't want to fight fair.

“That is fascinating to hear from the man who on every occasion refuses to debate us,” said Bruce Mirken, spokesperson for the Marijuana Policy Project, who added that his group, partially funded by billionaire Peter Lewis, has offered before to square off with the czar. “He flat-out refuses. I’ll debate John Walters anytime he wants.”

I'd pay every penny I had to watch a member of this Administration go down in flames and in history as the last stalwart in the War on Marijuana.
25Seattle Zen
      Donor
      ID: 55343019
      Wed, Sep 17, 2003, 21:00
Here are some other stories:

Despite I-75, Marijuana Laws Will Still Be Enforced

Seattle's citizens have told local police and prosecutors they should make marijuana use the least of their worries and instead provide better protection of homes, streets and neighborhoods.

I-75: Pot measure backed by money, political support

26Nerveclinic
      ID: 16538111
      Thu, Sep 18, 2003, 02:02
I was one of the few people in Seattle who actually made it to the polls yesterday.

Congrats to Zen on a lot of hard work that at last check appears to be paying off...
27Seattle Zen
      Donor
      ID: 55343019
      Thu, Sep 18, 2003, 16:29
Thanks for the votes, Nerve & bili. Without you... we would have still passed by over 14,000 :)

28James K Polk
      ID: 51010719
      Thu, Sep 18, 2003, 16:34
LOL, nice toon :)
29Toral
      Sustainer
      ID: 2111201313
      Thu, Sep 18, 2003, 18:24
Meanwhile, north of the border, Health Canada said to be providing poor quality dope to medical marijuana recipients.
30Baldwin
      ID: 111112015
      Fri, Sep 19, 2003, 17:57
The winning slogan -

"You'll tax my latte when you pry it from my cold (on account of the double-cups I insist on and screw the damned rainforest) dead hands!"
31Seattle Zen
      Donor
      ID: 55343019
      Tue, Sep 23, 2003, 10:37
This is an excellent story on the hypocracy of John Walters and the ONDCP.
32Seattle Zen
      Donor
      ID: 55343019
      Tue, Jan 06, 2004, 19:17
Oh my... I just got this e-mail and couldn't believe it. How very cool!

Hello,

NORML's founder and director Keith Stroup will be on conservative talk show
host and author Laura Ingram's nationwide Westwood One radio show.

The subject matter this evening is the successful voter-led efforts in
Seattle in 2003 to decriminalize marijuana
, with the first step appointing a
commission that will recommend implementation of the voters' will.

Stroup is appearing at 8:00 PM (eastern). Ms. Ingram's show is heard in most
major radio markets.

33Toral
      Sustainer
      ID: 2111201313
      Tue, Jan 06, 2004, 19:33


Laura
34Toral
      Sustainer
      ID: 2111201313
      Tue, Jan 06, 2004, 19:44
Laura's page.

That poor hippie is in for a beating tonight.

Toral
35Pancho Villa
      Sustainer
      ID: 533817
      Tue, Jan 06, 2004, 20:16
Toral,
A beating? What could she possibly come up with that would rationalize not changing the Draconian marijuana laws?
Anyone that has consumed whiskey, tequila, vodka or gin has taken a far more dangerous drug than marijuana. At least 2 generations know that pot smokers don't brawl, they don't hold up 7-11s, they don't drive 100 MPH off cliffs.
Unless she just thinks that spreading long forgotten hysteria is chic, the casual listener will dismiss her as an extremist looney. I've never heard her, but her PR suggests an Ann Coulter clone.
37Seattle Zen
      Donor
      ID: 55343019
      Tue, Jan 06, 2004, 20:24
Mmm, it starts early :)

I have a feeling (without ever hearing her before) that Keith and Laura will be agreeing quite a lot.

Keith's no hippie, he's a sharp tack.
38Seattle Zen
      Donor
      ID: 55343019
      Fri, Jan 16, 2004, 14:28
In September, Seattle voters passed Initiative 75 by a solid 58 percent majority. Now, even though marijuana use is still against the law, arresting and jailing adults for marijuana use is Seattle's lowest enforcement priority. Law enforcement resources will be focused on serious crime rather than penalizing people for conduct that does not harm others. By Kathleen Taylor, Director of ACLU-WA

I'm still bitter that I argued against this initiative and lost by a huge margin. By Tom Carr, Seattle's elected prosecutor.

I listened to all three hours of Ms. Ingram's show that night, unfortunately no visit by Mr. Stroup. As much as I loath right-wing radio and call-in shows in general, I tip my hat to Laura, she is razor sharp. Too bad there is no market for polite radio. I would love to see her on The Charlie Rose Show some day. I think she is slumming right now.
39Perm Dude
      Dude
      ID: 30792616
      Fri, Jan 16, 2004, 14:48
re #35: Actually, I did know someone who drove off a cliff when high on MJ. But it's certainly a small minority (perhaps because it's illegal, so people tend to use it furtively).

pd
40Seattle Zen
      Donor
      ID: 55343019
      Tue, Feb 24, 2004, 19:10
I-75 panel to hold first meeting
41Seattle Zen
      ID: 53252259
      Wed, Aug 18, 2004, 10:36
I-75 called effective by both supporters and foes.

The number of people prosecuted for pot possession has plummeted, and despite predictions of naysayers, there is no evidence of widespread public pot consumption as a result of the measure, which voters approved last year.

The initiative appears to be working as intended, according to Holden and City Attorney Tom Carr, an outspoken opponent of I-75.

Statistics for the first six months of 2004 show that the city has prosecuted just 18 cases of marijuana possession compared with roughly 70 during the same time period last year.


Great to see that the press realizes that I-75 has made a difference. A city the size of Seattle has had only 18 arrests all year!

A friendly reminder for all Northwest Gurupies, this weekend is The Seattle Hempfest, the world's largest cannabis political rally. Hope to see you all there.
42Baldwin
      ID: 53631254
      Wed, Aug 18, 2004, 14:41
How many days does it take you to stop giggling after that?
43biliruben
      ID: 441182916
      Wed, Aug 18, 2004, 14:50
Sounds like Baldwin's tempted!

I might be able to make it for the first time in a few years: purely for sociologic value, of course.

44Perm Dude
      ID: 2343587
      Wed, Aug 18, 2004, 14:54
just 18 cases of marijuana possession

Man, that's a lot of pot. You think they would break it down into smaller bales or something...

:)

Good news, Zen.
45Seattle Zen
      ID: 179472013
      Mon, Oct 24, 2005, 00:11
They are voting on a similar initiative in Teluride, here is some press.
A man stood in a Seattle park this month in a kind of showdown with the police. Behind him was a crowd celebrating the opening of a new park with a haze of marijuana smoke. In front of him were about 10 cops, who seemed unsure of what they should do next, aside from politely asking the crowd not to smoke pot while the cops were standing there.

But, according to several accounts of the event, a man named Dominic Holden faced the police and spoke passionately about the drug laws in America. He said he respected the Seattle police for arresting serious criminals, but that he asked the police to respect the will of the voters, who had said they wanted marijuana to be the "lowest law enforcement priority."

When he was done, he lit a joint a passed it along.

"I was protesting the fact that marijuana consumption is illegal," Holden said, "and that adults who smoke marijuana are treated as criminals."

But in Seattle, anymore, they aren't.

When Holden lit up his joint, the police politely asked him to leave the park, and issued him a seven-day Park Exclusion Notice. This means he could not re-enter the park for seven days. Holden called it "the wettest noodle in all of SPD's arsenal."

The group putting on this initiative even copied our name - Sensible Colorado. Good luck guys!
46Seattle Zen
      ID: 3100137
      Wed, Nov 23, 2005, 11:06
Since Seattle voters famously made the Emerald City a bit greener by mandating that cops mellow out when it comes to marijuana possession busts, a funny thing has happened.

Nothing. Nada. Nil. No crazy hopheads running amok with "reefer madness." No groundswell of support to legalize the drug (at least no more than usual), and no discernible protest by law enforcement that a pro-drug message effectively has been sent -- or received.
47nerveclinic
      ID: 19730619
      Sat, Nov 26, 2005, 23:35
Not one day goes by in San Francisco, not one day, when I walk down the street and don't smell someone smoking pot out in the open.

Right smack downtown in the business district.

Everyday.

Gotta love it.

48biliruben
      Leader
      ID: 589301110
      Mon, Nov 28, 2005, 17:41
"Crows do not sell drugs."

I loved the quote, though not the precedent.
49Seattle Zen
      ID: 91152620
      Thu, Dec 08, 2005, 22:05

Seattle's Move to De-Prioritize Marijuana Arrests Is Working—Arrests for Marijuana Use Are Down, Pot Smoking Is Not Up, and Other Cities Are Following Our Lead. So What's Next? How About Ending the War on Drugs?

Initiative 75, if you believed those who warned against its passage in 2003, was going to confuse kids, lead to an explosion of marijuana use, and squander taxpayer money on a citizen review board to study the effects of the new law. None of this has happened, even according to Carr, the city attorney, who had warned before the law's passage that I-75 was "wrong for our children and our community."

Marijuana-related case filings by the city attorney's office have dropped sharply since I-75 took effect, from 178 filings in 2003, the year the initiative passed, to 59 filings in 2004. That's a 67 percent reduction in arrests, prosecutions, and jail sentences connected to marijuana use—and a similarly large reduction in the angst felt by local dope smokers, the lives altered by jail time for smoking some pot, and the taxpayer money spent sending stoners through the legal system. (As of this November the number of marijuana-related filings by Carr's office was set to decline again in 2005, with only 35 filings reported in the first 11 months of this year.)

It's been two years now and the effect has been great. Not only are number of arrests way down, but other cities have passed similar initiatives and marijuana policy has been seen in a positive light.

"I've never understood why adults shouldn't enjoy the same right to use verboten drugs as they have to suck on a Marlboro or knock back a scotch and water," Norm Stamper, former chief of police. In a more than 100-page document produced by the King County Bar Association earlier this year, much the same argument is made, albeit with a lot more footnotes and slightly less accessible language than Stamper uses. The dense document, however, may end up being more significant than the editorial by Stamper, or even any of the "demonstration projects" in cities that make marijuana busts a low priority. It is part of a "grass tops" effort to give opinion leaders and policymakers a way of thinking about life after the war on drugs, and the fact that it comes from a deliberative body made up of well-informed lawyers makes it all the more persuasive for the many politicians and civic leaders who already silently doubt the drug war's efficacy.

The report imagines the State of Washington controlling the distribution of currently illegal drugs, with softer drugs like cannabis perhaps being taxed and sold only to citizens who meet certain requirements (old enough, a resident of Washington, not too intoxicated at time of purchase), while harder drugs like heroin and crystal meth might only be given out under medical supervision to addicts involved in treatment. It's hardly the Bacchic free-for-all that backers of the status quo imagine when they talk worriedly about decriminalization. In fact, it could end up, in practice, being far more restrictive than the current drug-control regime. The aim would be to reduce crime by drying up the illegal markets for illicit drugs; improve public health by focusing state efforts on treating, rather than imprisoning, addicts; and protect children better by cutting down on the black-market drugs available to them while also cutting down on the incentive of drug gangs to lure children into black-market drug work.
50 Pancho Villa
      ID: 519522811
      Thu, Dec 08, 2005, 23:02
Anyone who's ever indulged in hard liquor knows that it is the most dangerous drug there is.
As someone who survived the drug wars of the 60s and 70s, it's refreshing to finally see some sanity.

SZ and bili - have you guys made any holiday plans yet? I'll be in Seattle one week from tonight(15th) which would be the best time to get together. I'll have a rent a car, and know the area extremely well, so if you have the time email me.
51Seattle Zen
      ID: 49112418
      Wed, Jul 11, 2007, 13:44
Santa Barbara loses its fight against a statute that makes the private use of marijuana by adults the city's lowest crime-fighting priority.

The Santa Barbara statute was modeled after Seattle's I-75.

The judge rejected the city's claim that state and federal drug laws made the local measure invalid. "Police officers can still arrest those who violate drug possession laws in their presence," Anderle wrote in his ruling. "The voters have simply instructed them that they have higher priority work to do."

Damn straight!
52Seattle Zen
      ID: 49112418
      Wed, Jan 02, 2008, 15:52
Our work is done!

For those of you who have been around for years, you will remember that I was counsel and number one signature gatherer for Seattle Initiative 75 that passed back in September 2003. One of the goals of the initiative was to create a panel to monitor progress and then release a report. Well, the report is out. I haven't finished reading it, but I am a proud parent who feels like he is watching his baby graduate from college.

I am disappointed to see the number of arrests starting to creep up in 2005 and 2006, but these numbers are so low for a city of Seattle's size. I'll post more after finishing the report.
53Seattle Zen
      ID: 49112418
      Mon, Jan 07, 2008, 18:33
Report: Disproportionate number of blacks arrested on pot charges in Seattle
The report found no indications the policy resulted in a jump in crime rates, increased marijuana use by youth or negative implications to public health. Outgoing council president Nick Licata, a member of the panel, said the report shows the initiative was "a good thing."

"It showed that you could actually make progress in legislating progressive drug reform laws and the sky doesn't fall down," Licata said. "Some fear that this would be the first step toward legalizing marijuana or drugs and I don't think that's going to happen. But I think this certainly opens the door for that conversation."
54Seattle Zen
      ID: 9147109
      Wed, Feb 11, 2009, 01:23
Oh My Gosh (as we try to impress upon our little one)!

Seattle Police Chief Gil Kerlikowske has been appointed as director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, a Cabinet-level post often referred to as the White House "drug czar."

HOLY SHIT! He was the chief of police in Seattle when I-75 was passed. He choose not to campaign against it and far more importantly, he agreed with it after it passed and honored its intent.

From John Walters (PUKE) to Gil Kerlikowske, what a HUGE change.

I'm sitting here dumbfounded. I knew the President Obama administration would be an improvement. Am I allowed to get my hopes up?
55biliruben
      Leader
      ID: 589301110
      Wed, Feb 11, 2009, 09:20
Hope he paid his taxes!
56Seattle Zen
      ID: 591271611
      Mon, Feb 16, 2009, 17:10
Some Find Hope for a Shift in Drug Policy
Washington State law prohibits the possession of marijuana except for certain medical purposes. Hempfest is not one of them. Yet each summer when the event draws thousands to the Seattle waterfront to call for decriminalizing marijuana, participants light up in clear view of police officers. And they rarely get arrested.

WOO HOO! Hempfest getting some well deserved national coverage!
57rockafellerskank
      Dude
      ID: 27652109
      Mon, Feb 16, 2009, 21:57
Let me start by posting that i think mary jane should be legal. but...


I have a Q for those that partake. How do you justify your belief/enjoyment of mj with the risk of getting caught ruining (damaging) your life? I get that you want/believe you are right, but doesn't it scare yo that one small mistake (IE rogue cop searching you) scare you? Might you lose your ability to make a living (IE lawyer) if you get a criminal record?

It's a similar argument I make about athletes that break rules... BIG loss (contract/endorsements) vs. small gain (fun/high).

I happen to love eating pizza. And, i think making pizza illegal is unfair and unjust. BUT if pizza were for some strange reason to be illegal... I wouldn't eat them cause the risk is too great vs. the feeling of a full belly.

Just asking....
58biliruben
      Leader
      ID: 589301110
      Mon, Feb 16, 2009, 22:24
I take risks just walking out the door. I could run someone down backing out of my driveway, and my life could be forever changed. I think getting behind the wheel is by far a riskier prospect than an occasional puff. Particularly in Seattle, where enforcement is minimal and sentencing isn't particularly onerous, and may get less so.

59rockafellerskank
      Dude
      ID: 27652109
      Mon, Feb 16, 2009, 22:33
Sure, life contains risks, but I might argue that adding "unnecessary" risks is, well, risky. What if you were a public defender and made your living as an officer of the court? Even in the liberal cit of Seattle, is agd high worth your law degree? (I'm assuming that the city attorney wouldn't care for a misdemeanor... i may be wrong?).

So, I take risks walking out my door. Life is full of risks. It doesn't mean driving without a seat belt (a minor crime) is a good idea... even though i think the gov't should butt outta my life. I'm not arguing the "chance" of getting aught, bili, I'm questioning why do it when the potential consequences are so great compared to the "reward"?
60rockafellerskank
      Dude
      ID: 27652109
      Mon, Feb 16, 2009, 22:37
Besides, in your example, you are participating ina legal activity in which you do something negligent (run over someone). In my example, puffing is illegal from the get go and carries a penalty at a very low standard (holding)
61weykool
      Leader
      ID: 41750315
      Mon, Feb 16, 2009, 22:38
Bili and SZ toking up....at least that explains some of there posts in other political threads.
RSF:
I dont think it is so much the risk/cost of getting caught it is the guaranteed loss of brain cells.
62biliruben
      Leader
      ID: 589301110
      Mon, Feb 16, 2009, 22:50
Well, so much for an honest discussion.

My career is in public health, and I analyze statistics for a living.

I understand the risks of many more things people do in their daily lives than I'm sure you do. I spent a month learning just about all the risks joe-judgmental-moron vastly over or under-estimates.

Smoking dope probably rings in at the 3022nd riskiest thing I've done in my life.

Live more. Worry less. And above all, don't be so freakin' judgmental.
63rockafellerskank
      Dude
      ID: 27652109
      Mon, Feb 16, 2009, 23:01
Nope, let's have an honest discussion without dismissing me, please. I have an open mind (I think).

I'm not talking about the 3022 most dangerous things you have done as far as you hurting yourself (IE riding a motorcycle or sky diving or backing up in your driveway). I'm talking about the risk of what society will do to you VS. the reward few the good feeling. I'm arguing that there is a n excessive risk of adverse consequences vs. a good time.

Let me use myself as a clear example. i make a good living. I like dope. i don't smoke dope cause if i get caught i lose a very nice lifestyle and probably my financial security because I'd get fired for a drug charge. So, I deem the risk of what society (the police and my employer) will do to me is not worth the risk of the buzz.

That's the question i am posing... is why do people (athletes, lawyers, others) take such a risk? Perhaps it's addictive in some way?) :) ?



64rockafellerskank
      Dude
      ID: 27652109
      Mon, Feb 16, 2009, 23:06
I understand the risks of many more things people do in their daily lives than I'm sure you do. I spent a month learning just about all the risks joe-judgmental-moron vastly over or under-estimates.

Why would Phelps risk millions in endorsements? (since you have told me how much you understand)
65biliruben
      Leader
      ID: 589301110
      Mon, Feb 16, 2009, 23:22
There are all sorts of risks people take that don't make a lot of sense. Spitzer hangin' wit' da' hos. Burress packing heat when he doesn't know how to put the safety on. Clinton dropping trou.

I think a certain type of supremely confident person may just think he's too good to get caught. But when you are an obvious target, like my examples and yours are, where people have a strong motivation to rat you out and the authorities would actually care, you have to be more careful, not less.

Average pot user has so little risk because there is not motivation for anyone except the crazed anti-drug zealot to go after him. Who the heck cares if I smoke a little dope, other than the people directly in my life? Nobody. That's why my risk is so low. Even if I did get caught, the ramifications would be pretty minimal for a first offense.
66rockafellerskank
      Dude
      ID: 27652109
      Mon, Feb 16, 2009, 23:35
There are all sorts of risks people take that don't make a lot of sense.

I guess that is my point, bili. I don't expect an answer, but why do people (especially the high profile ones) take this risk for a buzz. (rhetorical question. I'd extrapolate that past the "average joe". You may not have a lot to lose, but I'd guess a lot of "average joes" (Fed Ex delivery guy, factory worker subject to random testing, healthcare worker, city landscaper, ect...) have more to lose than they'd guess if they get caught by happenstance -- isn't that the only way to get caught?
67biliruben
      Leader
      ID: 589301110
      Mon, Feb 16, 2009, 23:43
I think you are under-estimating the effectiveness of the counter-measures. I know a number of people who are subject to random testing but smoke. There are easy ways around it.

Honesty, most companies just want that "drug-free workplace" sign for show. They don't really care what an employee does on his own time as long as he does a good job.

Then again, I know a federal agent who used to be a multi-hit a day user, and he quit cold-turkey, because he likes his job and the feds do care.
68biliruben
      Leader
      ID: 589301110
      Mon, Feb 16, 2009, 23:54
I'm assuming that the city attorney wouldn't care for a misdemeanor... i may be wrong?

Probably depends on where you are. I will spare you the litany of prosecutors and cops I've seen partaking of the evil weed.

Then again, the over-zealous sheriff making himself a laughing-stock down in Columbia, SC makes me think it might be a wee bit different in those parts.
69rockafellerskank
      Dude
      ID: 27652109
      Tue, Feb 17, 2009, 00:01
You're right, i don't know much about the counter-measures. But, i wasn't thinking about the average joe who does some hits at home and "cleans" up in the privacy of his home.

I'm talking about the Olympic swimmer who loses millions because someone had a camera phone, the NBA player who carries buds through airport security (Damon Stoudamire), the NFL payer who fails a schedule drug screen (Travis Henry), a friend of mine who lit up in a car who later got pulled over for speeding and the cop smelled doobie in the car, the businessman who bought from an undercover, the contractor who forgot he had a roach in the ashtray during a routine traffic stop.

non of these example has someone out hot to get them, and no amount of piss counter-measures would have eliminated the risk, yet they might all suffer employment/financial/legal (even if minor) woes.... for a buzz.

I go bak to my original premise. risk V reward.

70Seattle Zen
      ID: 591271611
      Tue, Feb 17, 2009, 00:06
Well, I know a lot of people who smoke marijuana illegally and everyone is different. When undertaking a cost/benefit analysis, one must calculate the cost. One aspect of the cost is the actual punishment: the day in jail, the fines, the repercussions from your work, the condemnation or teasing from your friends and family. I don't know anyone who would lose endorsements, but people can have their visitation/custodial rights of their children affected.

The other aspect is the chance that you will get caught. The vast majority of marijuana smokers do not get caught because they minimize their risks. The easiest way to get caught with marijuana is to have it on your person or in your car while you have a warrant for your arrest or you get arrested. There are probably close to 10 million dwellings with marijuana in them right now and the people in those dwellings are simply not going to get arrested for it. Leave it out on a table in the front window while a police officer is speaking with you at the door, well...

So, most people who regularly smoke marijuana do so discretely and wisely, avoiding the riskiest behaviors and therefore avoiding arrest. Other people are so determined to smoke that they will go to great lengths to do so. I knew someone who was subjected to random urinalysis (there is a stupid federal law that requires it of all people who work on any avionics equipment) who came to work every day wearing a belt around his waist beneath his shirt containing a clean urine sample. When his name was drawn, he planned on opening a valve on a tube and releasing the urine into the cup. When I knew him, he had not yet been tested, who knows if it ever worked. That is seriously risky behavior creating an insurmountable cost in my mind.

I don't know what percentage of attorneys would lose their jobs if they were convicted of marijuana possession, that's an interesting question. I can't imagine a prosecutor keeping his post, but many small law firms I know smoke out together. I have never heard of a bar even admonishing an attorney for a marijuana conviction.

I'm sure you love eating pizza, but your analogy just doesn't work. There are plenty of other foods that you substitute for pizza. Your analogy is similar to "I sure love white wine, but I would give it up..." but still be allowed to drink all other forms of alcohol.

I'll get you a little closer. You are only allowed to eat rice, pasta, vegetables except avocado, fruit, herbs, nuts, chicken, tofu, and flax seed oil. No sugar, nothing fun at all. Mind you, pizza and cookies etc. are easy to come by, you have plenty of connections. Something tells me that you might occasionally indulge even at the risk of jail and a criminal record when you can do so in the privacy of your home with little to no chance of apprehension.
71rockafellerskank
      Dude
      ID: 27652109
      Tue, Feb 17, 2009, 00:13
Thank zen and bili fr the dialogue. I still think the risk isn't worth the reward, but i can appreciate your position... now off for some tofu!
72Seattle Zen
      ID: 591271611
      Tue, Feb 17, 2009, 00:22
I'm talking about the Olympic swimmer who loses millions because someone had a camera phone, the NBA player who carries buds through airport security (Damon Stoudamire), the NFL payer who fails a schedule drug screen (Travis Henry), a friend of mine who lit up in a car who later got pulled over for speeding and the cop smelled doobie in the car, the businessman who bought from an undercover, the contractor who forgot he had a roach in the ashtray during a routine traffic stop.

Each of these are different. First, Phelps didn't lose millions in endorsements. Omega watches, Visa, Speedo, all of these companies stood by him. His Kellogg's deal was set to expire in a two months and it wasn't clear that he was going to get a new one. That said, any celebrity's cost/benefit analysis is very different than the average guys. First, as we all know, you don't have to get arrested, all it takes is one a$$hole with a camera to blow a celeb's cover. Furthermore, a media firestorm is a huge cost all by itself. Any celebrity smoking in public is undertaking a huge risk.

Airport security is a TERRIBLE place to bring marijuana and reminds me of one drawback. I've advised many, many people to ALWAYS decline to give permission to search anything when asked by police because you may have left something somewhere and just forgotten about it. I surprised the hell out of myself when I discovered a pipe with bud inside of it in my shaving bag in a pocket I never opened. I figured that I had taken it on an airplane at least twice, pre-9/11/01 mind you.

Travis Henry has nine children out of wedlock with nine different women. In short, he's a fuçking idiot.

Don't smoke in a car and drive away with marijuana still left. Horribly risky behavior. Roaches are to be disposed of OUTSIDE the car! Don't buy from people you don't know. These are simply lessons taught in kindergarten in Seattle.
73Seattle Zen
      ID: 591271611
      Tue, Feb 17, 2009, 00:24
Good to hear you are going to be chiming in more, RFS. I agree, some good dialogue.

No cheese on that tofu!
 If you believe a recent post violates the policy on Civility and Respect,
you may report the abuse via email to moderators@rotoguru1.com 
RotoGuru Politics Forum

View the Forum Registry

XML Get RSS Feed for this thread


Self-edit this thread




Post a reply to this message: (But first, how about checking out this sponsor?)

Name:
Email:
Message:
Click here to create and insert a link
Click here to insert a block of hidden (spoiler) text
Ignore line feeds? no (typical)   yes (for HTML table input)


Viewing statistics for this thread
Period# Views# Users
Last hour11
Last 24 hours11
Last 7 days11
Last 30 days44
Since Mar 1, 20071254684