Ferguson in Context

[tvashtarkatena]

how do you know what voters will decide in 2016 and 2020 in all 50 states? you call yourself a scientist? where's your data?

 

Here's a data point. Alison Holcomb, arguably the country's leading expert on drug policy reform, stated on saturday that a majority of voters want the drug war to end. that's today.

 

lots of surveys will be done in the next 6 years

Edited December 8, 2014 by tvashtarkatena

[Jim]

Well here's just one more data point-

 

 

https://today.yougov.com/news/2013/11/25/poll-results-drug-penalties/

 

...which shows that preference of legalizing heroin is pretty low. The future? Who the heck knows? Not me.

 

I think the pot thing was a pretty good idea and the public is on board because it does have some medicinal uses, has a pretty low risk of addiction, and certainly is no worse (likely better?) than use of alcohol (ones choice I suppose).

 

In contrast the public right now doesn't see a parallel in legalizing harder drugs that have a higher risk of harm. What they do seem to prefer is less of a crackdown on petty use and an increase in treatment of these cases, which seems a sensible thing.

 

And WTF about the 501 legislation - didn't anyone consider the tax implications? There is some incentive here for our legislators to pass the easy fix -- and that is to keep the tax revenue rolling in. So hopefully our dysfunctional office holders will move along on this in 2015. But too bad for the 2014 tax filing for these businesses.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

And from our very own finest...

[Jim]

And from our very own finest...

 

WTF? This seems pretty simple. Why wasn't this clown, at the very least, suspended w/o pay for a couple weeks? That would send a message. Really? You can't control a skinny belligerent woman any other way than punch her in the face? While handcuffed?

[tvashtarkatena]

The public is on board for pot legalization not for the reasons you've mentioned, but because they recognize the negative civil liberties impact of prohibition. We checked with several rounds of voter surveys.

 

Regarding the tax structure of I502 (not 501), That can be amended starting next year. Yes, the tax implications were considered when the bill was written by two of WA's most talented civil rights attorneys - Paul Lawrence and Matt Segal. Matt served on the ACLU WA board with me for 4 years, Paul still does. Smart guys. The state must also estimate the fiscal impact as part of the initiative process. So, a lot of eyes were on it.

 

But I 502 was the first of its kind worldwide, so it's likely some adjustments will be necessary. A wave of other jurisdictions - 3 other states and DC (if congress doesn't screw it) have their own tax structures which WA is watching very closely.

 

The supply problem in WA has nothing to do with the tax structure but everything to do with the licensing structure - 3 levels of licensing became available simultaneously - grow, process, retail - but of course, it takes time to do the first two steps before the third can happen. Short term problem that is predictably settling out on its own nicely.

 

OR's simpler, single level tax structure is one model WA is looking at closely. Simpler is often better.

[Jim]

Hmmm. Interesting. As I said, the state has some incentive to fix the tax thing -- hopefully they will jump on it soon.

 

Out of curiosity - is there any concern that the feds will not turn a blind eye to these experiments if the Republicans get hold of the White House? I would think there is just way too much momentum now for them to interfere with the states on this one.

[tvashtarkatena]

That is a concern of course, but it's also not a reason to continue to move forward.

 

In fact, the more states that legalize, the harder politically it becomes for the feds - regardless of party, to turn back the tide. I don't know which states will probably legalize in 2016 - I'll check. Legalization is not the only step, of course. Med MJ and decriminalization provide intermediate steps to building down the War on Pot.

 

The majority of state level jurisdictions (including DC and PR) have some from of legalization/decriminalization of pot now. Public sentiment is rapidly changing as voters discover that legalization does not, in fact, result in anarchy, zombie children, or an increased population of long hairs.

 

Think same sex marriage. Between 2004 and 2006, 21 states passed same sex marriage bans. 8 years later, 35 states and 64% of our population enjoy equal marriage rights. Simply put: the GOP lost that one.

 

Well, they're probably going to lose the pot thing (if, in fact, it will be a GOP issue in 2016 - which I doubt). Lot's of tea party support for legalization now. Not because they give a rip about civil liberties, really. It's because it makes money.

 

Think legalized gambling. Money talks.

[tvashtarkatena]

Personally, I think WA's MJ tax structure is ridiculously baroque and way too high.

 

No pun...

[tvashtarkatena]

As a public health issue, heroin, coke, and meth don't even register in comparison to prescription drugs, alcohol, and tobacco. This is not to say that the hard drugs aren't a problem. They are.

 

Prescription drugs are legal but regulated. That gives the system a pinch point for reform, and reform is happening. Try to doctor shop for recreational pain meds in this day of electronic data sharing and you'll see what I mean. Still a long way to go - managing pain without opiates remains a largely unexplored area in the professional medical community, for example.

 

Regarding crime - burglary, robbery, and assault are already illegal, and they should remain so. The assumption is that everyone who uses drugs will commit those crimes (false), so use and possession should also be illegal. It's a fundamentally flawed model which had led to astronomical incarceration rates, massive discrimination, violent policing, a substantial erosion of basic civil liberties, a burgeoning for profit prison system, and enormous expenditures with only a more damaged society to show for them.

 

Criminalization is clearly not the answer, however. Going on 43 years of drug war now - the US is still the number one illicit drug using society per capita - drug use hasn't decreased - and drugs are more potent, varied, and cheaper than ever.

 

In 2001, Portugal decriminalized all drugs. Usage rates went down as addicts came forward, no longer fearing arrest, for treatment, enforcement expenditures went (way) down, and public education and treatment expenditures increased.

 

Drug decriminalization in Portugal

[glassgowkiss]

Yes, Portugal is a very good example of what a working policy looks like. Yet again, they approached it as medical problem first, hence the results. And the fundamental shift has to be towards "how do we get people off drugs" and away, how do we punish and make money off people who use them". Stopping privatization of prisons, drug courts and stopping mandatory sentencing would be a good start.

And police has to stop acting like a paramilitary enforcers, they also have to undergo a fundamental change in their approach. However it will never happen, unless judicial system starts charging cops committing crimes.

[tvashtarkatena]

Zero Tolerance - a train wreck of a policy philosophy popularized during the Reagan Era (when the War on Drugs really took flight - thanks, Gipper!) needs to finally die and be replaced by harm mitigation. What's the best outcome for all stakeholders, given the real (not mythical) nature of the human animal? How can we customize policy application to the granularity of the individual rather than blunt force it with an destructive, one size fits all mega policy?

 

Why have we demonized some drugs while we tolerate and even encourage the use of other's that are orders of magnitude more destructive (Superbowl beer ad, anyone?).

 

Now, I'm all for Superbowl beer ads - just not for criminalizing sooper bowls in the process.

 

 

[Pete_H]

Thanks for linking the article on Portugal. I'm looking forward to reading it when I have a chance.

 

Excessive state tax scheme for MJ is indeed counterproductive. As Ivan pointed out, it fails to stop the black market trade. The state should look to realise "profit" by the money saved from not having to enforce prohibition.

[glassgowkiss]

Here is an interesting link Pete. You know about shooting in N Carolina. Now listen to what the cop was saying afterwards, and watch the real situation. Two different stories. Now you tell me: in case of shooting Brown, how can we trust the story told by the cop?

Cop's story

 

It's very simple- they will lie, just to save their ass, and the prosecutors do nothing to curb it.

[Pete_H]

Now you tell me: in case of shooting Brown, how can we trust the story told by the cop?

 

Well, physical evidence for one. Also, his story makes common sense to me. At any rate, there's no way Wilson would ever be found guilty of murder or manslaughter based on what evidence there was, so you can hardly blame the grand jury for deciding the way they did.

 

However, yes, I concede the point. There are bad cops out there.

[tvashtarkatena]

You don't and can't know how Wilson would have fared in a normal jury trial. No one does - it never happened.

 

It's a pointless line of argument on its face.

 

 

[Jim]

Oh, I think it's pretty fair to say that there's no way Wilson would have been convicted in a jury trial where the standard of "reasonable doubt" is even more of a hurdle than the grand jury process.

 

This just isn't the poster case it was made out to be once the facts came out. The NYC choking incident (and others) are worth putting up there as true examples of police over-reach.

[Pete_H]

You don't and can't know how Wilson would have fared in a normal jury trial. No one does - it never happened.

 

It's a pointless line of argument on its face.

 

 

If the glove doesn't fit ...

[Fairweather]

Well said. The fact that certain individuals and orgs continue to invest in the Brown case despite other, more worthy outrages--not to mention the facts--probably boils down to ego. Or arrogance. Or unrelated complaints.

Edited December 9, 2014 by Fairweather

[tvashtarkatena]

It's like Obama cynically fixing the economy to spite conservatives and keep the democrats in power, probably. The nerve!

 

What is the 'Brown Case', exactly? Is it on some court's docket? Link?

 

Cuz, last I heard, the kid was dead. Habeas Corpus and all that rot.

 

I do know citizens and organizations are banding together to reduce excessive use of force and discrimination in the criminal justice system, etc, but that would require discussing specifics, wouldn't it?

[Jim]

Well, one can speculate endlessly and continue to play junior lawyer. I suppose there is a multitude of scenarios that could match the physical evidence including the intervention of the Spaghetti Monster, who was the real culprit who punched Wilson and tried to steal his gun. But given the physical evidence, the cumulative testimony of witnesses, and the officer’s testimony it seems the Grand Jury came to the only fact-based decision they could within the jurisprudence guidelines set up for this process.

 

The bar is not too high here to indict – you don’t need a unanimous decision and only have to have probable cause that a crime occurred. As opposed to a trial where it is a unanimous decision and reasonable doubt. The narrative hyped by the media just wasn’t so. And typically Grand Jury testimony is sealed, for some good reasons – but the prosecutor decided to make all the information public that was under his control.

Now one could argue that the prosecutor should have stepped aside for an outside attorney to take hold of the process. And I would agree. But it would not have changed the outcome or the cries for mob justice. But please feel free to speculate and arm wave some more.

 

Edited December 9, 2014 by Jim

[tvashtarkatena]

Or there's working for real justice, as an increasing number are doing today - galvanized by the events of Ferguson and elsewhere.

 

No emoticons or passive aggression required.

[Jim]

We know.

 

You're not a lawyer but just play one on TV.

[tvashtarkatena]

On the radio, anyway.

 

It's interesting to hear a so-called scientist proclaim with absolute certainty the hypothetical outcome of an experiment that will never be done, then accuse a person who has claimed nothing more than "that result can never be known" of playing armchair lawyer.

 

I can safely say that every trial lawyer in this country will agree as to the uncertain outcome of any jury trial. Or any court case, for that matter.

 

But hey, who's going to pass up the opportunity to star in one's own cartoon?

 

Innernutz!

[Jim]

Well. Like I said -- one can postulate on an extraordinary number of outcomes of the physical evidence -- but here on earth, we have set up a legal system that defines guidelines under which a jury of peers needs to consider the evidence - be it a Grand Jury or Trial Jury.

 

Given the physical evidence, the result of 3 forensic specialists, and a range of testimony -- the Grand Jury in this case, acting under the defined legal guidelines, found that the evidence did not meet the relatively low threshold for an indictment. And given the all the information - I'd say they were correct in doing so.

 

Now when others seem to have some difficulty with this decision they start filling in the gaps with a lot of "what ifs". Is it entirely possible that Wilson started things by dragging the big guy into his window and Brown was "defending" himself? Sure -- anything is possible-- you may also want to go with the Spaghetti Monster defense as an alternative as well.

 

But here's the point -- it don't mean shite -- least not to anyone with a clear eye to rely on facts and understand their responsibilities under such a legal process. So, while you've proposed some very interesting scenarios lacking any credibility, and some perfectly adorable strawmen, I think I'll stick to a colder assessment of the facts.

 

As a scientist I am more reality based than some.

[Fairweather]

On the radio, anyway.

 

It's interesting to hear a so-called scientist . . .

 

But hey, who's going to pass up the opportunity to star in one's own cartoon?

 

Innernutz!

 

Hmmm, this is ironic coming from you. UW MBA? Musta been, like, very recently. Yer not on the list. Naval Academy grad? Not. Service in the US Armed Forces? Hard to say. You claim yes. And no. Depending on the argument--and the meds, I suppose. Ivan says no. Good enough. Wealthy, retired tech CEO? Again, hard to say. Since we're on the topic, I'd love to hear more about your legal background. Theories spoon fed. I guess every board needs a lay project kid.

 

Jim. Now i don't agree with his meta outlook, but he strikes me as legit. Both here and in the real world you seem to know so little about.