Washington Legislature Drops The Ball (Again) On Marijuana Decrim

Never mind what the people of Washington want. The Legislature thinks pot is just too scary.

​By Steve Elliott at Toke of the Town

Cowardly career politicians, out of touch with their own constituents and terrified of being branded "soft on drugs," have once again dropped the ball on decriminalizing marijuana.

Senate Bill 5615, which would have freed up Washington's criminal justice resources by making adult possession of small amounts of marijuana an infraction carrying a fine, rather than a misdemeanor carrying mandatory jail time, failed to get a vote in the Washington State Senate Tuesday.

"This means efforts to address adult marijuana use through a civil, public health approach, rather than a failed criminalization approach, have died for the 2010 legislative session," said Alison Holcomb, drug policy director, ACLU of Washington.

"The ACLU of Washington is disappointed by the Legislature's failure to pass this bill despite strong and consistent public support for it," Holcomb said.

"An overwhelming majority of Washington voters support the modest change proposed by SB 5615 -- a change already made in 13 other states, 11 of them as long ago as the 1970s, with no adverse impact," Holcomb said.

According to Holcomb, studies in those states demonstrate no increase in marijuana use among adults or youth, results echoed in jurisdictions like Seattle, where adult marijuana possession has been the lowest law enforcement priority since 2003.

"In 2008, police and prosecutors filed 12,428 cases involving misdemeanor marijuana possession by adults in Washington courts -- using funds that would be far better spent addressing other priorities, including violent crime," Holcomb pointed out.

"The Washington State Office of Financial Management estimated that SB 5615 and its companion HB 1177 would have made approximately $15-16 million in scarce public safety dollars available to combat true public safety threats, and would have directed significant resources to sorely needed, state-funded treatment and protection services," Holcomb said.

"We applaud Sen. Jeanne Kohl-Welles, prime sponsor of SB 5615, for her tireless efforts to advocate for sensible reforms grounded in reason, science, and fiscal responsibility," Holcomb said. "And we hope our Legislature will get the electorate's message in 2011 and pass marijuana decriminalization legislation."

"It's time to stop wasting money on arresting and jailing adults for marijuana use and invest instead in proven prevention and treatment programs," Holcomb said.

Washington State Bar Association Board Unanimously Backs Marijuana Decrim

A massive representation of a joint in a "rolling paper" evoking the American flag, 2008 Summer Solstice Parade, Fremont Fair, Seattle, WA (Photo: Joe Mabel)

By Steve Elliott at Toke of the Town

Marijuana decriminalization in Washington state just won some important allies.

This morning, the Washington State Bar Association (WSBA) Board of Governors (BOG) voted unanimously to support the decrim bill, SB 5615, in the upcoming session of the Legislature.

The BOG voted 9 in favor, 0 opposed, and 2 abstaining to support the bill, Alison Holcomb, drug policy director at the ACLU of Washington, has told Toke of the Town.

Read the rest of the story at the new Village Voice marijuana blog, Toke of the Town

Marijuana Decrim, Frank Chopp, and the Case of the Missing Balls

Frank Chopp doesn't want to blow his speakers. (Photo: www.leg.wa.gov)

Ever know someone who had a really hot car, but they were afraid to really drive it?

That's how Washington's Speaker of the House Frank Chopp rolls.

How about the guy who had the 300-watt stereo system, but would never crank it up because "I don't want to blow the speakers"?

That's how Frank Chopp gets down.

And that's exactly how Chopp was getting down when a bill to decriminalize marijuana possession died in the Washington Legislature last spring.

According to multiple, well-placed sources (both inside the Legislature and those observing), Chopp, through a lack of political will and leadership, is the legislator most responsible for the death of marijuana decrim in the last session. A reliable inside source, in a position to know, tells me Chopp doesn't want to force a "controversial" marijuana decrim vote by the entire Legislature, because he doesn't want to force fellow Democrats (in the majority) to vote on pot any time before the 2010 elections.

The dude has a commanding Democratic majority in the state legislature, yet seems eerily unwilling to actually use that power to achieve progressive goals. Is that due to the fact that he's practically a sponsored candidate of the far-right Building Industries Association of Washington (BIAW), which funded both of Dino Rossi's reactionary (and unsuccessful) campaigns for Governor? Maybe. Chopp has worked with the BIAW to oppose consumer protection legislation supported by his own party.

"This is democracy at its worst," State Senator Brian Weinstein (D-Mercer Island) told The Stranger in a 2007 interview. "Here is one guy who overruled 30 Democratic senators and the Democratic House Judiciary Committee. There's no point in doing the fact finding, holding eight hours of hearings, of doing the right thing, if a dictator can just pull the rug out from under you."

"Weinstein went as far as to say Chopp killed the bill because he was sucking up to the BIAW," The Stranger's Josh Feit reported. According to Weinstein, Chopp wanted the BIAW on his side come election time to protect the Democratic majority. "And," Weinstein added derisively, "not do anything with it." (Chopp claims the BIAW had nothing to do with his decision.)

Democratic Rep. Brendan Williams (D-Olympia), who wore a defiant "No BIAW" pin to a Democratic holiday fundraising event in 2008, said he’s not running again because Chopp has neutered the Democratic agenda in Olympia by cozying up with the BIAW. Williams has been a major victim of Chopp’s alliance with the builders assocation: Two years in a row Williams’s homeowner bill of rights was killed at the last minute by Chopp. The BIAW was upset that homeowners would, my goodness, have the basic right to sue for faulty construction.

"Losing his majority" seems to be a deep and recurring fear for Chopp; it seems not to have occurred to the man that the reason he enjoys a big Democratic majority in the House is that maybe, just maybe, the voters support the Democratic agenda. His continual trumpeting of the "One Washington" theme sounds less like a yen for unity and more like a call for capitulation to conservatives. This is probably why Dominic Holden of Seattle alternative newspaper The Stranger has called Chopp a "feckless sissy."

The House Speaker has gone so far to appease the GOP that one prominent Demoractic State Senator, asked if Washington Attorney General Rob McKenna would be the Republican nominee for governor in 2012, replied, “Who knows? The GOP could run Chopp.”

Chopp's leadership style, or lack thereof, has been a growing source of controversy within progressive Democrats for some time now. Over and over, you see Chopp described as "the most powerful politician in the state," but you'd never guess it from his unwillingness to go out on a limb, to take a stand, to have a backbone.

This is frustrating for progressive Democratic voters who (over?)assume that having a liberal House Speaker like Chopp would result in more progressive advances. Granted, Chopp has passed the estate tax, collective bargaining for state employees, a housing trust fund, the highest minimum wage in the country, opportunity grants for college tuition, and other achievements.

But edge a little farther out the progressive limb and it doesn't take long to run into a laundry list of disappointments. Progressive wish-list items like environmental protections on Maury Island, payday-loan guidelines to protect low-income borrowers (which even Georgia has), ratcheting down the more than 400 lucrative tax loopholes handed out by the state to corporations... all unfulfilled promises, all due to Chopp's failure, despite wide party and voter support, to make it happen.

Labor unions, disappointed by Chopp's (and Gov. Chris Gregoire's) failure to bring the Workers Privacy Act (WPA) to a vote in the 2009 session, in an unprecedented move, declined to endorse any candidates this year. (The WPA supports First Amendment privacy rights of individual conscience, including opinions about politics, religion, unionization, and charitable giving. The WPA would have made sure that employees who resist any indoctrination of this kind by their employers would not be punished, and was unanimously approved by the state Democratic Party.)

Chopp, who grew up in Bremerton, likes to describe himself as a "Bremerton Democrat" (translation: "I'm almost like Norm Dicks. Besides, I don't smoke pot; I drink beer. Vote for me, please!"), presumably to distance himself from the "effete Seattle liberal" image that scares him so badly ("One Washington," remember?) Basing public policy on fear of what the conservative, largely rural, eastern Washington might think seems to be Chopp's mode of operation.

Chopp "repeatedly refused to provide any responses to citizens on the issues through the 2008 Political Courage Test when asked to do so by national leaders of the political parties, prominent members of the media, Project Vote Smart President Richard Kimball, and Project Vote Smart staff," according to Project Vote Smart. That would require, like, taking a stand, you know?

But it is perhaps telling that a few years ago Chopp, in the "Washington Gubernatorial Election 1996 National Political Awareness Test," wouldn't list marijuana decrim as a cause he supported:

Chart: Project Vote Smart

The 400 Dollar Man

Even Chopp's own constituents seem, well, unenthusiastic about him, at least when it comes to campaign donations.

In 2004, Chopp raised $91,585.80 for his reelection campaign -- but only an embarrassing $400 came from residents from his own district -- a total of three of them. The lion's share is from corporations, PACs and unions. Most of the rest is from individuals who live outside the district.

By way of contrast, Chopp's district mate, Ed Murray (who, unlike Chopp, was running essentially unopposed) got plenty of contributions from district residents.

Playing It Safe? Really?

The richly ironic thing is, Frank Chopp thinks he's playing it safe by not letting the Dems vote on marijuana decrim -- when, in fact, he's dangerously out of step with the people of Washington on this issue.

A recent poll shows a whopping 81 percent of Washington voters believe the state's pot laws are not working. Alison Holcomb, director of the ACLU of Washington's Drug Policy Project, says public opinion is firmly behind pot decrim.

Yet Chopp's timidity on the marijuana issue kept the bill (whose prime sponsor in the House was Rep. Dave Upthegrove of south King County) from moving forward. What, exactly, must we do to convince Chopp to actually lead, rather than dodge furtively about in the shadows like a spooked quail?

Marijuana Laws Cost Us, Big Time: At Least $177 Million Per Year (and counting)

Table: Dominic Holden, The Stranger

Rep. Brendan Williams of Olympia, one of the decrim bill's co-sponsors, used the cost-saving argument, vainly hoping hidebound conservative legislators would be attracted by fiscal responsibility. "Do you choose to provide health care for x number of children, or fund criminalizing marijuana possession?", he reasonably asked, citing a cost analysis of marijuana arrests taken from Washington State Institute for Public Policy data showing, based on the number of arrests in 2007, Washington would save at least $7.5 million by decriminalizing pot.

Throw in the $170 million the state of Washington wastes each year enforcing its futile and outdated marijuana laws -- which have no impact on marijuana use, according to the most extensive study ever undertaken on marijuana arrests -- and pretty soon you're talking real money.

And what do Washington's citizens get for their $177 million a year? Well, marijuana arrests, lots of them: 16,473 in 2007 -- 90 percent (14,766) of which were for simple possession (which would be decriminalized under the bill in question). Marijuana arrests accounted for almost half (48%) of all drug arrests in Washington during 2007.

Remember: The state of Washington is dealing with a $9 billion shortfall this year, yet somehow, even while cutting vital educational services, parks, and health care, finds money to bust pot smokers.

But I guess a paltry few million here and there doesn't mean a lot to the man who supports a project as monstrously expensive as what has been dubbed the "Choppway" or "Choppaduct" to replace Seattle's aging Viaduct -- even though voters in Chopp's district rejected an "elevated rebuild" by a convincing 73 percent.

The decrim bill would reduce the penalty for possessing up to 40 grams of marijuana to a civil infraction, subject to a $100 fine. Under current state law in Washington, having even one joint is a misdemeanor punishable by up to 90 days in jail. (A similar measure passed by a 30-point margin in a Massachusetts voter initiative last year.)

The bill almost immediately hit a roadblock after being introduced in January 2009. Rep. Chris Hurst of Enumclaw (office telephone 360-786-7866), a former narcotics officer(!) who chairs the Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Committee, refused to give the bill a hearing. Ex-cop Hurst claimed he actually "supports" decrim, but said Washington state "should not act ahead of the federal government."

In fact that has never -- even once -- been a problem in the 13 states, including even Mississippi, that have decriminalized. Besides, according to Rep. Roger Goodman (D-Kirkland), an attorney and former head of the King County Bar Association's Drug Policy Project, "Federal law clearly allows the states to prescribe their own penalties, whether civil or criminal."

Make no mistake about it: If House Speaker Frank Chopp had demonstrated a little leadership (or cojones) on this issue, he could have asked Hurst to pass the decrim bill out of committee. But he didn't... which brings us back to the case of the missing balls.

Will Frank Chopp Ever Grow A Pair?

Not unless his constituents (that's you, the voters) insist upon it; growth isn't always easy or comfortable. But if you make opposing marijuana decrim more uncomfortable for Frank Chopp than supporting it, he'll come around. It's amazing how fast these things can sprout once they get some proper support. (No, I'm not suggesting you think of yourself as a jockstrap.)

Call or write Rep. Chopp's office (contact info at bottom) and let him know that you, like the majority of Washingtonians, support decriminalizing marijuana.

Sen. Jeanne Kohl-Welles, D- Seattle, has authored legislation making possession of 40 grams or less of marijuana a civil infraction rather than a misdemeanor. Though the bill didn't get far last session (thanks in large part to Frank Chopp), Sen. Kohl-Welles plans on once again pushing it hard when the Legislature gets to work in 2010.

A matching bill will once again be introduced in the State House, where it has considerable Democratic support. “It will definitely be debated,” said Rep. Mary Helen Roberts, D-Lynnwood, who supports decriminalizing marijuana use and co-sponsored the House bill last spring.

This legislation is getting talked about among lawmakers seeking ways of cutting costs in the face of a $2 billion hole in the current budget, according to the Everett Herald-Net.

We all owe a big thanks to the members of the State Senate Judiciary Committee (which passed it 5-3 last spring) who supported the bill. The members of the committee who voted to pass were prime sponsor Sen. Jeanne Kohl-Welles, Committee Chair Sen. Adam Kline, Committee Vice Chair Sen. Debbie Regala, and the eloquent, intelligent and articulate Sen. Rodney Tom, all Democrats; and Republican Sen. Bob McCaslin, who bravely crossed party lines to make this a bipartisan effort.

On the other hand, Sen. Jim Hargrove and Sen. Pam Roach, along with Sen. Mike Carrell (the three Senate committee members who voted against the bill), proved that they don't mind wasting millions of your tax dollars on futile, pointless and cruel marijuana enforcement. Vote these clowns out of office next chance you get.

Contact Info For House Speaker Frank Chopp's Office

Call Speaker Chopp's office and let him know you support marijuana decrim.

(Etiquette hint: it's probably best not to talk about the missing balls.)

Rep. Frank Chopp
P.O. Box 40600
Olympia, WA 98504-0600
(360) 786-7920
E-mail Representative Chopp
District/Position: 43/2 (Democrat)

Reality Catcher: Marijuana Decrim, Frank Chopp, and the Case of the Missing Balls

Mr. President, It's Time To Talk About Marijuana

By Steve Elliott
Reality Catcher

In a recent town hall meeting, President Obama, when asked about the legalization of marijuana, nervously laughed and briefly dismissed the idea, which had been advanced as a way to help pull out of our current economic doldrums. In doing so, the President was following conventional wisdom when it comes to marijuana -- that to openly support reform or repeal of harsh anti-pot laws is tantamount to political suicide.

The President's nervousness around this touchy issue -- particularly in view of his admitted youthful marijuana use -- is completely understandable. But I don't think it's news to anyone that the political landscape is changing, and changing rapidly. Especially when it comes to marijuana, there is a huge shift underway in public perception of the herb -- one that will eventually and inevitably result in legalization. We are nearing that tipping point.

Olympic swimming star Michael Phelps' recent indiscretion is one of the catalysts that propelled marijuana to the front burner. (In case you've been under a rock, Phelps was photographed hitting a marijuana bong at a party.)

The marijuana community united in support of Phelps when he was unceremoniously dumped by corporate sponsor Kellogg's, and beyond that, a lot of people who hadn't given much thought to marijuana suddenly were wondering, "Hmm... If pot is really so bad, then how did Michael Phelps win all those gold medals?"

But there's a lot more to the story than that. The issue of marijuana law reform deserves serious consideration, because it has a big impact on both individual lives and families, and on law enforcement priorities and budgets, along with overcrowded jails and prisons.

No Time To Wait

I've seen the idea batted around that perhaps the President is biding his time. According to this line of thought, "controversial" things like marijuana reform will have to wait until Obama's presumed second term, when American presidents have traditionally dealt with issues that otherwise might have come back to haunt them when they ran for re-election.

I think of myself as a patient man, but there's more to this scenario than patiently waiting for politicians to lead. Most important is the fact that, contrary to what many believe, lots of people are still being busted for pot. In 2007, more than 872,000(!) people were arrested for marijuana -- an all-time high. The vast majority of those cases -- 775,000 -- were for simple possession.

If we're supposed to wait four more years for marijuana law reform, that means, at current rates, almost 3.5 million more Americans will have been arrested for marijuana before anything changes. More than 3 million of those arrests will have been for possession alone. That's just unacceptable.

Opponents of the war on marijuana -- or the "marijuana vote," if you will -- voted overwhelmingly for Obama in last November's election. While most of us are under no illusion that we'll receive any special treatment, what we do ask is to at least be taken seriously.

We believe that the issues of privacy, the erosion of civil liberties, jail and prison overcrowding, and civil forfeiture are crucially serious -- and the war on marijuana and its users directly and hugely impacts all of these concerns.

But while all of these issues are serious to any caring, informed citizen, none of them has the immediate and visceral impact of the most important issue of all: We believe it is wrong to jail people for using marijuana. Period. The punishment just doesn't fit the supposed "crime."

The United States already has a higher proportion of its population behind bars than any nation on Earth. Forget Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran; we've got them all beat, when it comes to keeping people in cages. Do we really need to exacerbate this problem by locking up people for pot?

Let's leave aside for a moment the genuine and valid questions many of us have about the Constitutionality of a law which outlaws a green plant and monopolizes that natural resource (cannabis) for the federal government's production -- which the current law assuredly does.

And to find our way to a productive discussion, we'll leave behind the extreme frustration many of us feel that the important issue of marijuana law seemingly ranks in priority somewhere below, say, a photo-op with Queen Elizabeth.

Let's cut to the chase: the financial aspect of prohibition vs. regulation. Legalization, regulation and taxation of the cannabis industry would result in a huge new source of revenue for federal, state and local governments. A substantial new revenue stream for government can only assist as we find ways to address the financial crisis which faces our nation.

This revenue stream could be established without substantially increasing the rate of marijuana use in the United States. In fact, if we look at the data from the Netherlands, there is reason to believe that legalization would result in reduced marijuana use, especially among young people.

Marijuana prohibition currently costs American taxpayers almost $42 billion a year. Compare this negative cash flow to the projected tax benefits of legalization -- between $2.4 and $6.2 billion annually -- and it becomes obvious why Milton Friedman and more than 500 other respected economists publicly support the legalization of marijuana.

In discussing government marijuana policy with fellow activists, we've wondered if the federal government can supply even one credible argument against legalization and regulation. And we've been unanimous in agreeing that we haven't seen one yet. What, exactly, are the benefits of marijuana remaining illegal? We'd really like to know.

The Question of Rescheduling

An excellent first step towards ameliorating the disaster that is federal marijuana policy (and has been for decades) would be to reschedule pot. Marijuana's current DEA classification as a "Schedule I" drug (right up there with heroin and PCP) means that, according to the federal government, pot has "a high potential for abuse and no accepted medical use." Almost unbelievably, even cocaine is deemed less dangerous than marijuana, receiving a Schedule II ranking.

That pot has no medical value would certainly come as news to the thousands of doctors and scientists who've shown marijuana to be an effective medicine for many conditions, and to the hundreds of thousands of medical marijuana patients. Which is to say, marijuana is scheduled incorrectly to such an extent that it would be comical if the real-world effects weren't so tragic.

It's important not to lose sight of the fact that ill people are needlessly suffering because of federal marijuana policies. Policies like these are impossible to rationalize or justify.

Marijuana's unjustifiable Schedule I status has resulted in years of the DEA's misguided policy of raiding medical marijuana patients and providers, even in states that have legalized pot's medical use -- because the federal government officially doesn't recognize any legitimate uses.

That's rather schizophrenic, since the federal government has itself for 30 years been supplying a handful of patients with government-produced medical marijuana. Hypocrisy much?

The Tide Is Turning

We applaud the positive moves the Obama administration has already made in regard to drug policy. We are encouraged that Mr. Obama supported pot decriminalization during his 2004 Senate campaign. Especially laudable is the stated new policy of the DEA, as confirmed by Atty. Gen. Holder, that federal resources won't be used to raid medical marijuana patients and providers in states where medical pot is legal.

But while that's a big step in the right direction, it ultimately won't be enough, as it doesn't address the issue of recreational use. More than 20 million Americans use marijuana regularly, and, according to Time magazine, 42 percent of the population has tried it at least once.

According to recent polls, marijuana legalization now enjoys majority support on the West Coast. Nationwide, the number is greater than 40 percent in three independent polls, and steadily creeping upward.

With a national majority soon to favor legalization -- sometime within the next 10-12 years, according to experts -- there is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to lead on this issue. We believe it deserves a thoughtful response.

Mr. President, it's time to talk about marijuana.