WA - ALL DRUGS LEGAL (Possession)

[MichaelH]

Apparently I can't edit in a sensible way right now....

 

[Flopsweat]

Apparently I can't edit in a sensible way right now....

Damnit Jim, I'm a lawyer, not a Web Dev.

 

[MichaelH]

Technical editing problems ^^^

 

[BBQ Guy]

Apparently I can't edit in a sensible way right now....

To many edibles?...

 

[The Heretic]

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

This extends to just about any stupidity that any person can engage in. Whether it is gambling or drinking too much alcohol (a legal drug and one that causes more of these kinds of problems than other drugs, it is just much easier to hide alcoholism than it is an addiction to meth, etc.) or riding a motorcycle without a helmet, or shooting oneself in the foot.

As you say, it is about responsibility - a concept I take very seriously. I AM responsible for my family because I brought my daughter into this world. I am responsible for myself.

I am NOT responsible for some stranger who does something stupid, or who has had some bad thing happen to them (cancer, lost their job, whatever). I did not cause them to do something stupid. I didn't cause something bad to happen to them.

Every dollar that is taken from me to pay for someone else's living costs is one less dollar that I have to provide for my family. When it gets down to it, for me, it is about $45 out of every $100 (if I do not take action to avoid taxes by deferring earned income into something tax protected or otherwise avoid taxes some other way - and even then, I always pay 6-13% FICA tax on that income before I can defer it).

The socialists say it is my "duty". Duty is an obligation. A debt. Just how did I acquire that debt? They can't really say - just that it is. Ayn Rand had a theory about them saying it was "original sin" and that probably is not too far off - their (socialist's) reasoning sounds suspiciously like that concept.

Socialist's say it is the price for having a "better world", etc., etc. as if that is a valid justification for stealing what I earn and giving it to someone else.

Thing is, I think about 90% of the populace in first world countries believe this BS to one degree or another. even the "classic liberals" (Hayek, Friedman, et. al.) allowed for some for of socialism to be necessary (although they didn't use that term).

It didn't take long for this country to step over the line to socialism - as far back as the early 1800s Congress was giving away $ for social purposes, money that wasn't theirs to give away in that fashion. Also, early on, Congress passed laws violating the First Amendment (the Alien Sedition acts) just as another example of how it didn't take long for politicians to ignore the Constitution they swore to uphold.

Just the same, one wrong does not justify another. Just because the country & people say I am somehow responsible for other's misfortune or mistakes, does not make it right to put people in prison for their stupidity that does not directly harm others. Not to mention that we all know that prohibition, whether it is prohibiting alcohol, or guns or drugs - not only does not work, but makes things worse.

The socialists use circular reasoning for all this; first they say that somehow we are responsible for others. Then they say that they have the right to infringe on the rights of others because we are responsible for them. This is the reasoning they use for motorcycle helmet laws, seat belt laws, taxes on junk food and so on - not to mention gun control. We are no better when we use that same reasoning for putting people in prison for simple possession of drugs.

 

[BrentN]

This extends to just about any stupidity that any person can engage in. Whether it is gambling or drinking too much alcohol (a legal drug and one that causes more of these kinds of problems than other drugs, it is just much easier to hide alcoholism than it is an addiction to meth, etc.) or riding a motorcycle without a helmet, or shooting oneself in the foot.

As you say, it is about responsibility - a concept I take very seriously. I AM responsible for my family because I brought my daughter into this world. I am responsible for myself.

I am NOT responsible for some stranger who does something stupid, or who has had some bad thing happen to them (cancer, lost their job, whatever). I did not cause them to do something stupid. I didn't cause something bad to happen to them.

Every dollar that is taken from me to pay for someone else's living costs is one less dollar that I have to provide for my family. When it gets down to it, for me, it is about $45 out of every $100 (if I do not take action to avoid taxes by deferring earned income into something tax protected or otherwise avoid taxes some other way - and even then, I always pay 6-13% FICA tax on that income before I can defer it).

The socialists say it is my "duty". Duty is an obligation. A debt. Just how did I acquire that debt? They can't really say - just that it is. Ayn Rand had a theory about them saying it was "original sin" and that probably is not too far off - their (socialist's) reasoning sounds suspiciously like that concept.

Socialist's say it is the price for having a "better world", etc., etc. as if that is a valid justification for stealing what I earn and giving it to someone else.

Thing is, I think about 90% of the populace in first world countries believe this BS to one degree or another. even the "classic liberals" (Hayek, Friedman, et. al.) allowed for some for of socialism to be necessary (although they didn't use that term).

It didn't take long for this country to step over the line to socialism - as far back as the early 1800s Congress was giving away $ for social purposes, money that wasn't theirs to give away in that fashion. Also, early on, Congress passed laws violating the First Amendment (the Alien Sedition acts) just as another example of how it didn't take long for politicians to ignore the Constitution they swore to uphold.

Just the same, one wrong does not justify another. Just because the country & people say I am somehow responsible for other's misfortune or mistakes, does not make it right to put people in prison for their stupidity that does not directly harm others. Not to mention that we all know that prohibition, whether it is prohibiting alcohol, or guns or drugs - not only does not work, but makes things worse.

The socialists use circular reasoning for all this; first they say that somehow we are responsible for others. Then they say that they have the right to infringe on the rights of others because we are responsible for them. This is the reasoning they use for motorcycle helmet laws, seat belt laws, taxes on junk food and so on - not to mention gun control. We are no better when we use that same reasoning for putting people in prison for simple possession of drugs.

Great post. My understanding is that prisons are not reallly full of people busted for simple possession. Regardless, in our current culture of dismissing responsibilty for certain crowds, how do we deal with the associated issues of drug addiction? I expect a massive increase in treatment centers, funded by the apparently bottomless pit of taxpayer cash. Personally, when these addicts commit crimes to fuel their addiction, I'd just as soon see them locked up.

 

[Alexx1401]

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

This has Always been my feeling here. Very libertarian on the idea. I do not much care what adults want to do. When they want to include kids, and or want me to support them? That's when I do care. Personal responsibility has become a racist term any more. To even suggest that people take responsibility for their choices is racists if they are minority and just anathema if they are not. An entire couple generations have learned this well. NOTHING they do is every their fault if it goes bad.
Look at the people who loot and burn with impunity. Often they drive car's a hell of a lot nicer than mine, carry phones with them that cost enough to buy a working car. When caught? They really expect there to be no consequence for them.

 

[The Heretic]

Great post. My understanding is that prisons are not reallly full of people busted for simple possession. Regardless, in our current culture of dismissing responsibilty for certain crowds, how do we deal with the associated issues of drug addiction? I expect a massive increase in treatment centers, funded by the apparently bottomless pit of taxpayer cash. Personally, when these addicts commit crimes to fuel their addiction, I'd just as soon see them locked up.

Number of arrests in 2018 in the U.S. for drug law violations: 1,654,282

Number of drug arrests that were for possession only: 1,429,299

Number of people arrested for a marijuana law violation in 2018: 663,367

Number of those charged with marijuana law violations who were arrested for possession only: 608,775

 

[Flopsweat]

Number of arrests in 2018 in the U.S. for drug law violations: 1,654,282

Number of drug arrests that were for possession only: 1,429,299

Number of people arrested for a marijuana law violation in 2018: 663,367

Number of those charged with marijuana law violations who were arrested for possession only: 608,775


View attachment 834358

I like posts with sources.

 

[BrentN]

Number of arrests in 2018 in the U.S. for drug law violations: 1,654,282

Number of drug arrests that were for possession only: 1,429,299

Number of people arrested for a marijuana law violation in 2018: 663,367

Number of those charged with marijuana law violations who were arrested for possession only: 608,775


View attachment 834358

I think you misunderstood my post. I clearly stated "prisons" and "simple possession". You retorted with a list of arrests, charged for possession, and a chart that encompasses "drug offense". El Chapo is included in this chart.

 

[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.

Wow...that's a terrible statute.

Great post. My understanding is that prisons are not reallly full of people busted for simple possession. Regardless, in our current culture of dismissing responsibilty for certain crowds, how do we deal with the associated issues of drug addiction? I expect a massive increase in treatment centers, funded by the apparently bottomless pit of taxpayer cash. Personally, when these addicts commit crimes to fuel their addiction, I'd just as soon see them locked up.

Crimes get them locked up, regardless of possession. The key is when you harm others, then you need to be in jail.

 

[No_Regerts]

I think you misunderstood my post. I clearly stated "prisons" and "simple possession". You retorted with a list of arrests, charged for possession, and a chart that encompasses "drug offense". El Chapo is included in this chart.

In the state of WA, you would have to get convicted of 6 felonies before a simple possession would result in the minimum 12 months + 1 day to go to prison. The vast majority of people that are convicted of possession charges go on probation where they are required to go to treatment and take regular drug tests. Many will do more than a year of extra time for probation violations.

 

[The Heretic]

I think you misunderstood my post. I clearly stated "prisons" and "simple possession". You retorted with a list of arrests, charged for possession, and a chart that encompasses "drug offense". El Chapo is included in this chart.

No, I was just lazy in trying to find the info. It does give the general idea though.

 

[The Heretic]

Additionally, when you get arrested and/or convicted of a felony, you pretty much shoot down your chances of getting/keeping a decent job, thereby increasing your chances of committing crimes later on, thereby increasing crime in general (statistically as a population).

Not saying that this justifies the crime they commit. I am saying the consequences of drug laws making simple possession a felony actually increase crime and poverty.

 

[BrentN]

Additionally, when you get arrested and/or convicted of a felony, you pretty much shoot down your chances of getting/keeping a decent job, thereby increasing your chances of committing crimes later on, thereby increasing crime in general (statistically as a population).

Not saying that this justifies the crime they commit. I am saying the consequences of drug laws making simple possession a felony actually increase crime and poverty.

BOLI : Hiring discrimination and "Ban the Box" : For Workers : State of Oregon

Job applicants are protected from being discriminated against because of protected characteristics like race, gender, and age.

www.oregon.gov

A short ways down the page under "For Workers" it explains how employers are not even allowed to ask about criminal convictions. You may agree with this, I don't. But I would like to quit rehashing the 2nd sentence of my post, it wasn't even the point of my post, I was more looking for conversation as to the effects on society for all this drug legalization. I expect an increase in crime, and what do we blame the crime on if drugs are legal? Guns will likely be increasingly used in crimes, so there my be an increased focus on guns. Say someone shoots and kills their spouse. Will it even be reported if the shooter was high on heroin, meth, fentanyl, crack, or other?

 

[The Heretic]

BOLI : Hiring discrimination and "Ban the Box" : For Workers : State of Oregon

Job applicants are protected from being discriminated against because of protected characteristics like race, gender, and age.

www.oregon.gov

A short ways down the page under "For Workers" it explains how employers are not even allowed to ask about criminal convictions. You may agree with this, I don't. But I would like to quit rehashing the 2nd sentence of my post, it wasn't even the point of my post, I was more looking for conversation as to the effects on society for all this drug legalization. I expect an increase in crime, and what do we blame the crime on if drugs are legal? Guns will likely be increasingly used in crimes, so there my be an increased focus on guns. Say someone shoots and kills their spouse. Will it even be reported if the shooter was high on heroin, meth, fentanyl, crack, or other?

Employers can and will do a background check.

Employers will also discriminate and it is hard to prove that discrimination because 99.9% of it goes on in the mind of some HR person who throws your resume/application in the trash bin with no comment. Whether it is age, ethnicity or gender or whatever. That said, I don't blame an employer for rejecting a candidate due to a criminal background. I was just saying that this is yet another effect of criminalizing things that should not be a crime.

As for effects on society - those are effects.

If legalized or decriminalized, then those effects would probably lessen - IMO.

Would crime increase? Time will tell, but in some countries where there has been legalization/decriminalization, I am given to understand that overall crime has decreased.

Drug decriminalisation in Portugal: setting the record straight. | Transform

transformdrugs.org

 

[Flopsweat]

Employers can and will do a background check.

Employers will also discriminate and it is hard to prove that discrimination because 99.9% of it goes on in the mind of some HR person who throws your resume/application in the trash bin with no comment. Whether it is age, ethnicity or gender or whatever. That said, I don't blame an employer for rejecting a candidate due to a criminal background. I was just saying that this is yet another effect of criminalizing things that should not be a crime.

As for effects on society - those are effects.

If legalized or decriminalized, then those effects would probably lessen - IMO.

Would crime increase? Time will tell, but in some countries where there has been legalization/decriminalization, I am given to understand that overall crime has decreased.

Drug decriminalisation in Portugal: setting the record straight. | Transform

transformdrugs.org

As a hiring manager for several years, I was also the firing manager. You fire for cause or non-performance and you document the bubblegum out of it. If you don't hire someone, you take a risk if you tell them why. What I'm trying to say is that there are very legitimate reasons not to document why someone isn't hired, and to use standardized responses. These will coincidentally help mask true discrimination, but they have legitimate use.

That said, everything is a felony these days. When I was a kid, a felony was something only very dangerous people did. Murder, stealing really large amounts of money, that sort of thing. I remember when politicians all started preaching this "If elected, I will make X a felony, punishable by blah blah..." Good intentions? Maybe some of them, but most of them? I doubt it.

 

[The Heretic]

Yes, pretty much never had anyone tell me why they would not hire me beyond the typical euphemisms for "we hired someone else, good luck". I stopped caring a long time ago, and care even less now.

 

[Soli]

So, those in the know, will they just rewrite the law to add in the something rea part?