It certainly seems like this is the tipping point. Overall national support for decriminalization is at just over 50%. Several of the most populous states, such as California, have medical marijuana, decriminalization, or outright legalization statutes on the books or have just passed them. All of the west coast is pro legalization.
I imagine that once there is more social acceptance of marijuana out in the open and a longer track record of legalized marijuana without society crumbling more and more people will come around on the idea.
I do agree that the general trend toward more states approving medical marijuana suggests that fewer and fewer people are still viewing the drug as evil. If the federal government doesn't interfere with Colorado and Washington, I'm hopeful that marijuana grown in those states will start to replace Mexican marijuana on the black market and weaken the cartels. It's really unconscionable that American politicians are willing to perpetuate the constant state of fear that so many Mexicans are living in now by maintaining marijuana prohibition. What could possibly be worth 12,358 lives in 2011 alone? [1] The knowledge that we're making it harder for our children to obtain a safer alternative to alcohol?
Oregon has medical marijuana and partial decriminalization on the books. But more substantially the de facto policy of the police and public attorneys has been one of tolerance and escalating decriminalization amidst very soft enforcement of any sort of limits on "medical" use.
Heck, even if you're a couple of sixty-somethings who grow marijuana and donate large amounts of the profits to charity, you're still going to jail in the UK:
If something should be legal it should be legal regardless of what happens with the proceeds, similarly if it should be illegal then what happens with the proceeds should be irrelevant.
I don't think that what they did should be illegal (though I do think it should be regulated), but what happened with the money should be neither here nor there as far as the law is concerned. You don't get to buy favour.
It doesn't change whether you committed an offence or not, but it should, and does, impact the punishment you receive for it.
In this case I would argue the sentencing guidelines are too restrictive; although they were given punishments at the lower bound (three years in prison), this was still completely disproportionate to the crime they committed.
The crime they committed was not a violent one, and did not significantly harm anyone. It diverted money away from criminal gangs towards charitable projects. The couple involved were of good character, and did not pose a danger to society by any stretch of the imagination.
I think it's plain to see locking them up for three years is a colossal waste of taxpayers' money.
I have no issue with the judge taking into account that they were probably genuinely nice people and I suspect that that was indeed taken into account (if you read the Guardian account, even the prosecutor mentions it).
However, while not breaking down the numbers, it doesn't sound like most of the money went on philanthropic endeavours and I suspect it was a long way short of even a majority of the money (I've read four newspaper accounts now and not one uses "most" to describe the proportion).
In reality of a three year sentence given their prior record, their age and the nature of the crime, they'll likely serve a little over one year and that'll be in a relatively low security prison. As they've likely personally profited to the tune of over £250,000 after their charitable donations that doesn't seem entirely unreasonable.
Also worth noting this line form the Telegraph account:
"Mr Foster, 62, admitted regularly selling cannabis in deals of around £1,500 to a local drug dealer to whom he had been introduced through a loan shark."
The point here is that while they're nice, some of the people who they seem engaged with in the wider venture might not be. They're not in this on their own, they're also enabling others. If you deal drugs you probably have other people sell them, you probably get involved in money laundering and all that can lead to a greater criminal enterprise which will have genuine negative effects, even if what you personally do doesn't.
Now you can make a really great case that it's only the illegality that makes that so, and I'm completely on side with that and support it, but while it remains illegal it does mean that it's hard to do the sort of things they do in an entirely innocent way.
> As they've likely personally profited to the tune of over £250,000 after their charitable donations that doesn't seem entirely unreasonable.
I assume they will have had their assets seized as proceeds of crime, so it's not as though they are trading off jail time for profit.
> The point here is that while they're nice, some of the people who they seem engaged with in the wider venture might not be. They're not in this on their own, they're also enabling others.
I wouldn't view it as enabling. If this couple aren't supplying the dealers, someone else will be, and that other person is almost guaranteed to be a nastier individual.
As I say, in a sense this couple were diverting funds away from real, nasty criminal enterprises towards their apparently harmless selves, and the charitable projects they supported.
If you're claiming charitable donations out of what they made means they should get leniency then trading profit for jail time is exactly what's happening.
Donations made from what they make = less profit directly to them. If that then leads to a shorter sentence (or as you're saying no sentence) then how is that not trading off jail time for profit?
The only thing you can say in their favour is that it seems unlikely that they were thinking that cynically when they did it, that the donations were probably genuine rather than an attempt to play the system, but it still sets a very dangerous precedent.
Besides, what about all the money they've already spent which can't be recovered? There really is no argument that they didn't profited from the crime.
Cops, prosecutors, or grand juries use their discretion and judgment and turn a blind eye as necessary. It's really not that complicated as long as people operate in good faith and use common sense.
In the long run, does that seem like a very good thing? While we might think it's good that Joe the pot dealer doesn't end up with his life ruined, having a judiciary (and enforcement infrastructure) which decides, on their own discretion, to turn a blind eye is similarly empowered to throw out cases of abuse. In the short term I guess it's OK to have some crimes punished lightly, but a better long term solution seems like it's to fix the laws to reflect our desires.
Oh man, if only there was a punchline here. I'm not sure how to respond to this, so apologies in advance if I come off condescending or dismissive or mean or long winded.
Here's the thing, that boat you're talking about? It sailed a long time ago, perhaps half a century ago in fact. Modern law enforcement is all about discretionary enforcement, at every level from the cop on the beat up to prosecutors and judges. We do not live by the rule of law any more, that is a polite fable. We are drowning in laws and their discretionary enforcement shapes our de facto legal and political landscape. Consider the ideal: laws are intuitive and easy (let's settle for possible, even) for everyone to understand and abide by; laws are enforced even-handedly by a police force which serves the public interest; trials are speedy, fair, and performed in a manner which maximizes the exposure of the truth; if insufficient evidence exists the accused are let go, if sufficient proof exists that the accused committed the specific crime then they are found guilty; with the aid of common sense and sound judgment the guilty is kept separated from society for an appropriate period of time to protect society, to punish, and to provide an opportunity for rehabilitation; when the guilty has been rehabilitated and is safe to re-enter society they are released.
Now, compare this to reality. Firstly, it is impossible for any citizen whatsoever to fully understand the laws they are subject to, let alone an average citizen. For example, let's say you are returning from Honduras and you wish to bring back a few lobster tails that you have caught. Does it matter how long the tails are? Does it matter whether or not you put them in a bag or in a box? As it turns out, it does. If you bring back tails that are longer than 5.5" in length and you pack them in a box, you'll probably be fine. If you accidentally have a few shorter tails in the group and if you use a bag to transport them then you could be put in prison for 8 years. This is not hypothetical, this is a thing that happened. Incidentally, 8 years is more time than one would expect to serve for being convicted of sexual battery, for example.
Let's move on, we could spend all day on just that issue alone. Let's look at police and prosecutorial discretion. Because of this massive profusion of laws this, of course, leaves a huge amount of discretion at the hands of agents of the criminal justice system. Consider, for example, the war on drugs and asset forfeiture. Without much due process if an asset (such as a car, a boat, or a house) is used in connection with the manufacture or sale of illicit drugs then that asset can be seized by the police and then sold at auction (or retained for departmental use). This provides an incentive for the police to enforce certain laws more than others because doing so can lead to an increase in the funding for the department. Now let's look at prosecutors. Today trials are not the norm, plea bargains are the norm. It's not what you're guilty of, nor what you can be proven guilty of, it's how much the DA wants to stick it to you, how much they care about prosecuting the general class of crime you are accused of, and how much time and effort they have. Whatever the penalty is on the books for the crime you're accused of is irrelevant, the amount of time you'll actually serve is typically in the hands of the prosecutor and entirely up to whether they want to make a deal. Guilty of rape? Maybe you're a nice guy with a skin tone that stirs feelings of compassion in the DA so he or she will agree that instead of going after you for rape you'll just plead guilty to a far lesser charge like "indecent liberties".
Consider this at a higher level. If you fail to pay your taxes, what happens? Well, you get put in jail of course, or at least heavily fined and punished. Unless you are a candidate for a federal cabinet office, in which case you simply make an excuse, pay your back taxes, and nothing happens. Is this equal justice? No, it is a different standard of legal enforcement based on class and membership in the elite.
Meanwhile, if you do go to court the chances that you'll get a decent attorney who cares about your well being and has enough time to actually work on your case competently is not as high as you'd hope. And the rules for evidence, "scientific" testimony, and witness reports are archaic, convoluted, and based on nothing resembling scientific or rational rigor. Consider that people have been convicted of serious offenses such as rape and murder based on the testimony of a single eye witness. Consider how many people are exonerated and released from prison each year due to the discovery and testing of new evidence or re-examinations of their cases.
Now consider prison. It does little to rehabilitate anyone, at best it is a punishment that the released live in fear of experiencing ever again. Recidivism rates for violent crimes are at about 60% in the US, and for property crimes such as burglary it's even higher. Prison culture is not a healthy culture, and we take the guilty and steep them in that culture for years and then release them back into society. This is madness. People are more likely to develop habits concordant with deviant and unlawful lifestyles, to make connections with criminal networks, and to learn new criminal skills in prison than to learn how to function properly in the peaceful world outside. Worse yet, rape and sexual assault is rampant in our prison systems, and this becomes a trauma that many inmates are forced to deal with and makes it even more difficult for them to integrate into civil society. It also leads them toward the path of self-medicating their emotional and mental pain through the use of drugs and alcohol (and perhaps even adrenaline, through engaging in violent activities and crimes). This does not describe a system that works, it describes a barbaric system that is perhaps just as much responsible for the ills of society as the innate evil that exists in the hearts of some men.
This is the system as it exists today. Everyone is a criminal. Everyone is a felon. Many times over. And our place in society, the perception of our actions by the agents of the criminal justice system, and so forth determines whether or not such omnipresent criminality will be prosecuted to the utmost, negotiated down to a different tier of consequences, or simply ignored.
This is the world we live in, and have for decades. To label it as a police state is not quite apt, but to label it as some sort of monster that is an enemy to the advancement of human civilization would be supremely justified. But it is a monster we are perhaps comfortable with, and a monster that we are so familiar with that we do not even recognize it exists even when it is right there in front of us every hour of every day, we just let our eyes slide right over it and pretend it doesn't exist.
Amazing and horrifying, this post should be required reading for anyone concerned about the rule of law. Could you post this on a blog somewhere and resubmit it so that it gets the amount of discussion it deserves?
"Eventually it was discovered, that God did not want us to be all the same. This was Bad News for the Governments of The World, as it seemed contrary to the doctrine of Portion Controlled Servings. Mankind must be made more uniformly if The Future was going to work. Various ways were sought to bind us all together, but, alas, same-ness was unenforceable. It was about this time, that someone came up with the idea of Total Criminalization. Based on the principle, that if we were all crooks, we could at last be uniform to some degree in the eyes of The Law. [...] Total Criminalization was the greatest idea of its time and was vastly popular except with those people, who didn't want to be crooks or outlaws, so, of course, they had to be Tricked Into It... which is one of the reasons, why music was eventually made Illegal."
"Several of the most populous states, such as California, have medical marijuana, decriminalization, or outright legalization statutes on the books or have just passed them. All of the west coast is pro legalization."
There has actually been a lot of backward momentum in recent years, especially in the West. Californians rejected the full-decriminalization proposition a few years ago. The state is also cracking down on dispensaries, and/or allowing more and more DEA raids against dispensaries and state-sanctioned growers.
On the other side of the pond, even Amsterdam is starting to crack down on cannabis shops and decriminalization statutes.
By all accounts, the measure in CO was an abberration from recent trends. Maybe it will be a tipping point back in the pro-legalization direction. But it represents a shift in the prevailing tides of the last few years.
Marijuana has been decriminalized in California since 2010. The proposition to legalize the drug failed to pass. But I would hardly call this "backward momentum." It's not like there was a ton of incentive for Joe Pot to rally behind the move--cheap prescriptions, cheap dispensaries, and cheap penalties is keeping him plenty happy and stocked.
There was no such "cracking down" in Amsterdam. And I would hardly call what happened in the Netherlands "cracking down." Many cities were weary of tourists entering the country simply to get high. So those cities combatted the "anti-social" tourist by requiring marijuana IDs at their coffeeshops. Citizens are free to use, but unless other countries adopt legalization laws in the Euro Zone some Dutch cities feel they must enforce these policies.
Will be interesting to see how Colorado/Washington deal with this, as they will likely encounter the same issue. If I lived in a border city like Vancouver, I'd be prepping for an influx in 2014.
"Marijuana has been decriminalized in California since 2010."
Specifically, the possession of less than 1 oz of marijuana has been decriminalized. Possession of a larger quantity, or sale or intent to distribute, has not been.
"The proposition to legalize the drug failed to pass."
Prop 19 was not a full legalization; it was more like a major decriminalization. Possession of up to 1 oz would have been legalized, but many of the "gotcha" side-penalties (employers retain rights to drug screen and consider cannabis in the system a firable offense; legal penalties for possession above 1 oz; etc.) would have remained in place. I think it's fair to say that, had it passed, Prop 19 would have been a really big step toward legalization. But let's not split hairs.
"There was no such "cracking down" in Amsterdam."
Not only has the sale of marijuana to tourists been outlawed, but "coffee shops" are being forced to reorganize as membership-only clubs, with caps on membership at around 1,000-1,500 per shop. There is also a growing movement, with vocal sponsors in the Dutch parliament, to ban "coffee shops" altogether.
"And I would hardly call what happened in the Netherlands "cracking down."
Again, hair spliting over semantics here. The fact is that the Netherlands is moving in a more conservative direction w/r/t marijuana policy. However you want to define "cracking down," the present directionality is from X to Y, where X is a more liberal policy, and Y is a more restrictive policy.
I see your point that policy in the Netherlands is not necessarily germane to policy in the US. I think that's a fair one.
You're ignoring the legalization in Switzerland, which is definitely the most significant change in global marijuana policy in the last two years until last night.
It was a poorly written law. Support for legalization nationwide is currently about 55-59% in the abstract, but on any given law it's rarely higher than 50%. Prop 19 was an especially bad law for a variety of reasons, and even then it came very close to passing.
I imagine that once there is more social acceptance of marijuana out in the open and a longer track record of legalized marijuana without society crumbling more and more people will come around on the idea.