WA - ALL DRUGS LEGAL (Possession)

[RicInOR]

Ok, for a moment


Washington State Supreme Court finds state's felony drug possession law unconstitutional. For the time being, possession of ALL drugs is legal

Immediately following the ruling, Seattle Police announced they would no longer be arresting people for simple drug possession, and they won't confiscate drugs under the statute. Other agencies quickly followed suit.

https://www.q13fox.com/news/washing...-felony-drug-possession-laws-unconstitutional

The ruling strikes down RCW 69.50.4013 Section 1. Without that section, there is essentially no state law on simple drug possession.

Read More

 

[Alexx1401]

Well this will certainly make crime drop to the point they can get rid of at least half the Police department. Voters should be over the moon happy with what they begged for.

 

[ma96782]

When can I stop paying taxes to support these drug using people and their families?

Aloha, Mark

 

[CamoDeafie]

Ok, for a moment


Washington State Supreme Court finds state's felony drug possession law unconstitutional. For the time being, possession of ALL drugs is legal



https://www.q13fox.com/news/washing...-felony-drug-possession-laws-unconstitutional

Interesting. Sure would like them to apply the same logic to the gun laws they have

 

[CamoDeafie]

Reading the ruling further... it looks like the statute was intended to criminalize mere possesion of drugs, without proving intent.

Now. Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't the gun laws recently passed in WA, along the same line of thinking, criminalizing mere possession of items prohibited by the wording of the new laws, and not requiring intent? If so, this could open up SAF and NAGR and NRA to bring new civil suits to repeal those laws.

 

[The Heretic]

Interesting. Sure would like them to apply the same logic to the gun laws they have

Unfortunately, it would not work - at least not in the same way. The case seems to revolve around the person who possess the drugs intent (she claimed she did not know she had drugs on her person because the pants were given to her with the drugs already in them). With guns, they can prove intent by showing you bought the gun, which would be easy to prove if you bought the gun thru an FFL or bought it after the BGC laws went into effect.

 

[Alexx1401]

Reading the ruling further... it looks like the statute was intended to criminalize mere possesion of drugs, without proving intent.

Now. Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't the gun laws recently passed in WA, along the same line of thinking, criminalizing mere possession of items prohibited by the wording of the new laws, and not requiring intent? If so, this could open up SAF and NAGR and NRA to bring new civil suits to repeal those laws.

Sadly no amount of hypocrisy will ever work with gun laws. The reason is you have to get some black robes to say so. If anyone finds a black robe to say yes, some gun law is no good, 5 more robes will step in to say the law is fine. ALL laws only mean what a black robe tells you they mean. Of course the fight against the gun laws has to be paid for out of pocket. The fight to keep the laws are funded by tax money and there is no end to the money when the law makes want it to win.

 

[Flopsweat]

This is an opportunity to "build back better". The state can now take a few weeks to examine the bigger issue: Do drug laws work and if so what strategies have been proven effective in real-world application?

Of course we all know it's much easier to follow political dogma, so what we'll get instead is a new law so that elected officials can say that they did something, and either the same old unintended consequences as last time, or an exciting new set of them.

 

[Alexx1401]

This is an opportunity to "build back better". The state can now take a few weeks to examine the bigger issue: Do drug laws work and if so what strategies have been proven effective in real-world application?

Of course we all know it's much easier to follow political dogma, so what we'll get instead is a new law so that elected officials can say that they did something, and either the same old unintended consequences as last time, or an exciting new set of them.

It will work just like the war on poverty. Look what a grand accomplishment that has been after untold billions of dollars have been thrown at it. Since that has gone so well they just keep throwing more cash at it.

 

[The Heretic]

I have long held that simple possession of almost any substance/item, whether it is drugs or guns or ammo or whatever should not be illegal.

 

[Flopsweat]

I have long held that simple possession of almost any substance/item, whether it is drugs or guns or ammo or whatever should not be illegal.

Soon you will not be allowed to possess certain opinions.

 

[ma96782]

Unfortunately, it would not work - at least not in the same way. The case seems to revolve around the person who possess the drugs intent (she claimed she did not know she had drugs on her person because the pants were given to her with the drugs already in them). With guns, they can prove intent by showing you bought the gun, which would be easy to prove if you bought the gun thru an FFL or bought it after the BGC laws went into effect.

BUT, But, but.......

The whole idea of why guns need to be regulated is because some people think that the guns will do bad things.

Wait a second.....
If the gun(s) aren't used in a criminal fashion?

Rrrrrright, how could one prove intent?

Rrrrrright.....

Murder is already against the law.

Aloha, Mark

 

[Flopsweat]

BUT, But, but.......

The whole idea of why guns need to be regulated is because some people think that the guns will do bad things.

Wait a second.....
If the gun(s) aren't used in a criminal fashion?

Rrrrrright, how could one prove intent?

Rrrrrright.....

Murder is already against the law.

Aloha, Mark

The Constitution makes the primary intent rather clear...

 

[ma96782]

Plenty of drug mules get caught at the airport every day. Rrrrright.....

"That package in my luggage isn't mine. Someone is supposed to be meeting me later to pick it up. I have no idea what's in it."

Aloha, Mark

 

[BBQ Guy]

This is an opportunity to "build back better". The state can now take a few weeks to examine the bigger issue: Do drug laws work and if so what strategies have been proven effective in real-world application?

Of course we all know it's much easier to follow political dogma, so what we'll get instead is a new law so that elected officials can say that they did something, and either the same old unintended consequences as last time, or an exciting new set of them.

I like the idea of "build back better". This time we can include the bureaucraps in some inane law targeted at them only.

90% of societies problems could be solved with getting rid of the bureaucraps.

FTR, if people could keep their drugs and related problems behind closed doors. I wouldnt give a dang. It is your problem if what you enjoy is getting high. Same thing for most other illicit behavior. Not my problem if it stays behind a closed door. Your choice, your problem.

 

[Deerhurst]

Welcome to Oregon with that ruling! Locally drug related crime has gone way up.

You will probably have freedom week california style but with meth and crack.

 

[BrentN]

It will work just like the war on poverty. Look what a grand accomplishment that has been after untold billions of dollars have been thrown at it. Since that has gone so well they just keep throwing more cash at it.

Somewhere around 13 trillion, since the late 60's, is the number I keep seeing..

 

[No_Regerts]

There are more implications to this ruling than what people realize. Not only will future prosecutions for drug possession end, past convictions will be vacated. This means everybody that is on probation, or in prison, will be released.

This also means that anybody who was sentenced more harshly due to past convictions from drug possession resulting in more "points", will have their sentences reevaluated as they may no longer qualify for the sentences they received.

The other implication of this ruling, is that the court reviewed an issue that was not brought forward during the appeal. The court essentially went looking for an issue to overturn rather than addressing the actual appeal. This is very worrisome, as it is the height of judicial activism.

 

[bigbearbear]

So.....drugs are legal but machine guns are not? What's up with THAT huh?!?

Come on supreme court, ALL guns should be legal too.

 

[slimmer13]

So.....drugs are legal but machine guns are not? What's up with THAT huh?!?

Come on supreme court, ALL guns should be legal too.

Maybe your machine gun identifies as an 8 ball of coke?