WA - ALL DRUGS LEGAL (Possession)

[Alexx1401]

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

Nothing burns my butt more than every time I hear that. Especially when it's time to do the taxes and they want some more from Wife and I both as we're supposed to be so well off we need to send some more to the damn worthless dopers who want to live in a tent and scream for me to feed them

 

[No_Regerts]

What gets me is she used the least plausible excuse. "These pants I'm wearing aren't mine!"

I really think the court screwed the pooch. Their main argument is the legislators exceeded the police powers with how they wrote the law, by making the RCW a "strict liability" law where no knowledge is required to be guilty. Much like child rape. They stated the opportunity to change the law to incorporate "knowingly" existed over the revisions that had been made to the law over the years. They ruled the legislators purposely omitted a mens rea requirement to be found guilty. However, there is an RCW that basically orders that judges interpret laws to where they are constitutionally sound. If that RCW applies, mens rea is required because it is correct by common law.

 

[Flopsweat]

What gets me is she used the least plausible excuse. "These pants I'm wearing aren't mine!"

I really think the court screwed the pooch. Their main argument is the legislators exceeded the police powers with how they wrote the law, by making the RCW a "strict liability" law where no knowledge is required to be guilty. Much like child rape. They stated the opportunity to change the law to incorporate "knowingly" existed over the revisions that had been made to the law over the years. They ruled the legislators purposely omitted a mens rea requirement to be found guilty. However, there is an RCW that basically orders that judges interpret laws to where they are constitutionally sound. If that RCW applies, mens rea is required because it is correct by common law.

Well that whole "mens rea" thing just sounds sexist to me.

 

[No_Regerts]

Well that whole "mens rea" thing just sounds sexist to me.

Sounds like a bad trip to Taco Bell.

 

[Cavedweller]

I got mensrea once in S.E. Asia. Oh, wait...

 

[BrentN]

Nothing burns my butt more than every time I hear that. Especially when it's time to do the taxes and they want some more from Wife and I both as we're supposed to be so well off we need to send some more to the damn worthless dopers who want to live in a tent and scream for me to feed them

At least it made a measurable difference in the poverty level...........not.

 

[The Heretic]

 

[Flopsweat]

View attachment 833889

What I really hate about pot is how it makes people less aggressive toward others and slower, more careful drivers.

 

[Cavedweller]

What I really hate about pot is how it makes people less aggressive toward others and slower, more careful drivers.

Yeah, it's really annoying when they sit at a stop sign waiting for it to turn green.

 

[MichaelH]

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

Aloha, Mark

Washington has no state income tax. You live in Vancouver, we Oregonian know you don't pay sales tax on anything but cars, houses and guns...

 

[MichaelH]

Actually the decision makes sense if the possession statute was written without an intent element. There are very few strict liability crimes, and that's intended to protect citizens from overzealous law enforcement. Intent for something like possession really isn't that hard to prove.

 

[No_Regerts]

Actually the decision makes sense if the possession statute was written without an intent element. There are very few strict liability crimes, and that's intended to protect citizens from overzealous law enforcement. Intent for something like possession really isn't that hard to prove.

Except that RCW that requires courts to interpret the laws to have all the required constitutional elements. The court ignored that.

 

[Alexx1401]

What I really hate about pot is how it makes people less aggressive toward others and slower, more careful drivers.

When I was a kid in school if I was not high it only meant I could not scrape together the cash that day
Did pretty much make School a waste of time for me and the teachers. That was a hell of a long time ago though and from what I see now the pot these days is not even the same drug anymore. Since they made it legal here see quite a few people who end up in ER's over the stuff. The kind made to eat seems to be the biggest problem. I guess it all comes with instructions for dosage but take a while to "hit". So someone will take the specified amount, when nothing seems to happen will do it again. Then when it kicks in it really "kicks in"
At first we had Police bringing in people who Cops thought were having either mental or physical emergencies. Some times "thought" they were having low blood sugar problems, some times even a stroke. Only to then find the person was just so high they were out of it. The one "good" part of it of course is none of them I have ever seen were violent. Sure as hell not someone you wanted to see behind the wheel of a vehicle though. Several came in after being found driving and were not even arrested as Police thought it was a medial problem.
Maybe after I retire I will be brave enough to try some again for myself but so far not really a temptation seeing the results

 

[ma96782]

Washington has no state income tax. You live in Vancouver, we Oregonian know you don't pay sales tax on anything but cars, houses and guns...

Aloha, Mark

 

[Flopsweat]

When I was a kid in school if I was not high it only meant I could not scrape together the cash that day
Did pretty much make School a waste of time for me and the teachers. That was a hell of a long time ago though and from what I see now the pot these days is not even the same drug anymore. Since they made it legal here see quite a few people who end up in ER's over the stuff. The kind made to eat seems to be the biggest problem. I guess it all comes with instructions for dosage but take a while to "hit". So someone will take the specified amount, when nothing seems to happen will do it again. Then when it kicks in it really "kicks in"
At first we had Police bringing in people who Cops thought were having either mental or physical emergencies. Some times "thought" they were having low blood sugar problems, some times even a stroke. Only to then find the person was just so high they were out of it. The one "good" part of it of course is none of them I have ever seen were violent. Sure as hell not someone you wanted to see behind the wheel of a vehicle though. Sever came in after being found driving and were not even arrested as Police thought it was a medial problem.
Maybe after I retire I will be brave enough to try some again for myself but so far not really a temptation seeing the results

Even the smokable kind is insanely strong now. It's a cleaner high but you really gotta take it easy. Moot point since I hardly ever smoke anymore either because I never know what kind of background check I may have to take for the job.

View attachment 834067

Aloha, Mark

That's what I thought at first but I think what he means is how do you refuse to pay sales tax.

 

[ma96782]

Taxes come in many shapes and forms.

+++++++++++

Then.....
The simple notion of drug usage for me, is.....

YES.....there might be some drug users who could/maybe function and take care of themselves and their families. BUT, there are also those who don't and/or can't function while living the drug lifestyle. And, those "destructive stories" are all over.

So then.....
IMHO....If.....someone chooses to do drugs and/or chooses to be in that lifestyle.....

"Why do I need to pay for them, their kids and wife (GF. BF or whatever)?"

It's called "responsibility".

I made my family and I paid for my family to have the things that I could afford for them. But.....a big chunk of my pay got/gets taken out......to "help" fund those who have chosen the drug lifestyle.

Fix that. Before we/you open the door to any more stupidness.

Aloha, Mark

 

[MichaelH]

Except that RCW that requires courts to interpret the laws to have all the required constitutional elements. The court ignored that.

I can tell you, having argued an appellate case in WA where the statutory language was different from the stated legislative intent, that the appellate courts are OK interpreting ambiguity in legislation, but they say they are not supposed to write or rewrite it. From a court's perspective, what level of intent is necessary if the legislature didn't specify? I'd be happy to look at the relevant RCW--you might be right-- but you didn't post the code section.

Separately, why should government put me in jail if I'm an idiot and make choices that might harm me? Criminalizing possession is a step away from government telling me what to think or what I can or cannot do in my bedroom.

 

[No_Regerts]

I can tell you, having argued an appellate case in WA where the statutory language was different from the stated legislative intent, that the appellate courts are OK interpreting ambiguity in legislation, but they say they are not supposed to write or rewrite it. From a courts perspective, what level of intent is necessary if the legislature didn't specify. I'd be happy to look at the relevant RCW--you might be right-- but you didn't post the code section.

Separately, why should government put me in jail if I'm an idiot and make choices that might harm me? Criminalizing possession is a step away from government telling me what to think or what I can or cannot do in my bedroom.

Its an interesting issue with the possession RCW. Its been revised several times, but it was never revised to state that someone must knowingly be in possession. WA is the only state that doesn't have wording requiring mens rea. Rather than fix the statute and other statutes that lack the wording, they did this lazy fix:

RCW 9A.04.060: Common law to supplement statute.

app.leg.wa.gov

 

[MichaelH]

Its an interesting issue with the possession RCW. Its been revised several times, but it was never revised to state that someone must knowingly be in possession. WA is the only state that doesn't have wording requiring mens rea. Rather than fix the statute and other statutes that lack the wording, they did this lazy fix:

RCW 9A.04.060: Common law to supplement statute.

app.leg.wa.gov

Thanks for the citation. That's a pretty stupid fix, especially because I it wouldn't have been hard to ad a mens rea element where needed. I know people don't trust lawyers, but the folks who write laws really need to have an understanding of due process and application.

 

[MichaelH]

Thanks for the citation. That's a pretty stupid fix, especially because it wouldn't have been hard to ad a mens rea element where needed. I know people don't trust lawyers, but the folks who write laws really need to have an understanding of due process and application.