Seattle throws out pot convictions:
Judges in Seattle have decided to quash convictions for marijuana possession for anyone prosecuted in the city between 1996 and 2010. City Attorney Pete Holmes asked the court to take the step "to right the injustices of a drug war that has primarily targeted people of colour."
Possession of marijuana became legal in the state of Washington in 2012.
Officials estimate that more than 542 people could have their convictions dismissed by mid-November.
Mr Holmes said the city should "take a moment to recognise the significance" of the court's ruling. "We've come a long way, and I hope this action inspires other jurisdictions to follow suit," he said. Mayor Jenny Durkan also welcomed the ruling, which she said would offer residents a "clean slate."
Order (PDF).
See also: Vacating misdemeanor marijuana convictions is the right thing to do (Editorial)
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Revek on Friday September 28 2018, @09:27PM (15 children)
A moment of sanity.
This page was generated by a Swarm of Roaming Elephants
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 28 2018, @09:51PM
Not quite. These people have been convicted of a crime, retroactively removing these convictions cause you are pushing agenda is a very slippery slope.
I'm sure these clowns think this will buy them votes. But they should know that for most people who smoke weed, the conviction is not what keeps them from voting.
Also, this is a city, not a City-state. Just because they believe themselves to be one, does not make it a reality.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by captain normal on Friday September 28 2018, @10:29PM (10 children)
A very brief moment, at least until reparations are offered to offset the damage done by the arrests and sentences. In many cases these people had their possessions confiscated.
When life isn't going right, go left.
(Score: 0, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 28 2018, @10:35PM (9 children)
Why should we offer reparations? Except in cases where the drugs were planted or the convicted was tricked into carrying them by the police, there shouldn't be any reparations as they were found guilty of something that was criminal at the time.
The fact that they're wiping a lot of these convictions out is quite generous and really more about not wanting to waste further state resources holding people accountable for something that's no longer illegal.
It's the right thing to do, but reparations is ridiculous. The state and local law makers shouldn't have to consider the cost of giving back lawful fines when they opt to legalize previously criminal acts.
(Score: 1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 28 2018, @10:49PM (2 children)
Fuck you, logical man. People of color who were repressed by drug laws deserve reparations. #BLM
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 28 2018, @11:03PM (1 child)
#ALM
Plenty of non-black people have had their lives ruined this way too.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 28 2018, @11:41PM
Stop appropriating. #BLM, honky.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 28 2018, @11:51PM (4 children)
Because you used government thugs to violate people's fundamental right to control their own bodies. An unjust law is no law at all. Maybe if you don't want to incur the costs of reparations, you should just respect people's liberties to begin with.
Not to mention that the war on drugs is unconstitutional at the federal level, regardless of what our authoritarian, treacherous courts have said.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 29 2018, @12:39AM (3 children)
There is no fundamental right to do drugs. It's not in the constitution nor has there ever been any court cases that recognized it either. And the idea itself does not follow logically either.
Part of living in society is accepting that there are restrictions to keep people playing together in a reasonable fashion. Personally, I'm not the biggest fan of pot being illegal, but reasonable people have agreed for decades that this is something that the government can do.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 29 2018, @12:43AM (2 children)
Ninth Amendment to the United States Constitution [wikipedia.org]:
Get it yet?
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 29 2018, @05:51AM (1 child)
That's not what that means, there is no right to put random chemicals into your body and there's over a century of case law to back that up. As a result, the 9th amendment wouldn't apply as there is no right being denied or disparaged,
By your interpretation, the government couldn't do anything because it could be claimed to be an unenumerated right.
This is just like that moron that sued a law school for violating the magna Carta despite his failure to complete the application and being in the U.S..
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 29 2018, @06:58AM
You don't seem to understand something. The Constitution is not merely a list of rights you have, but a list of powers that the government has. If the government does something that the Constitution does not say it can do, then it is violating the Constitution.
Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that the government can wage a war on drugs. The courts interpreted the commerce clause in an insane manner in order to justify the drug war. By their logic, anything that can conceivably affect interstate commerce can be regulated by the federal government, even if the transactions take place entirely within a single state. The commerce clause was simply never meant to give the government that much power, so the government is acting unconstitutionally.
There's also the matter of natural rights. If the government denies that you have a right, that does not mean that you don't have it; it only means that your rights are being violated.
The federal government can do what the Constitution explicitly says it can do.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by khallow on Saturday September 29 2018, @01:34AM
Or the confiscation of property was unconstitutional. Seizure of property is the elephant in the tent and a big driver for the Drug War.
(Score: 1) by bmimatt on Friday September 28 2018, @10:44PM
These sudden outbursts of reason are quite pleasant to learn about, but all too rare.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 28 2018, @11:46PM (1 child)
What kind of reasoning is "Because People of Color"? That's not a firm, principled foundation you can rely on.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 29 2018, @12:46AM
Precisely! That is exactly why these laws must be thrown out, and the convictions must be quashed/expunged/pardoned/etc.