Wow. This is big news.
Washington State Supreme Court finds state’s felony drug possession law unconstitutional
The Washington State Supreme Court has ruled that the state’s felony drug possession law is unconstitutional.
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. […]
In its ruling released Thursday, the high court said the law serves to “criminalize innocent and passive possession” because it is a “strict liability” law, meaning prosecutors don’t need to prove intent.
The ruling strikes down RCW 69.50.4013 Section 1. Without that section, there is essentially no state law on simple drug possession. […]
“Attaching the harsh penalties of felony conviction, lengthy imprisonment, stigma, and the many collateral consequences that accompany every felony drug conviction to entirely innocent and passive conduct exceeds the legislature’s powers,” the ruling reads.
Now, this doesn’t stop the legislature from drafting a new possession law that meets the court’s standards, but for now, simple possession cannot be prosecuted under the felony law.
Plus, right now there is legislation pending to eliminate criminal penalties for drug use altogether, much like Oregon’ has done. Meaning the chance of them rewriting the laws to reinstate prohibition is slim. They don’t have the votes if they did, nor do they have stomach to try. That dog won’t hunt, as they say. For now, at least, prohibition is done in Washington State.
Now we get to find a way to make this work and to make an example for the rest of the country. Go Washington!!
Any news on what happens with cases that have already been prosecuted? Release from prison? Expungement of criminal records? Re-instatement of 2nd Amendment rights?
United States v. Chambers, 291 U.S. 217 (1934)
United States v. Chambers
No. 659
Argued January 16, 17, 1934
Decided February 5, 1934
291 U.S. 217
Syllabus
1. The Court takes judicial notice of the fact that the ratification of the Twenty-first Amendment of the Constitution, which repealed the Eighteenth Amendment, was consummated on December 5, 1933. P. 291 U. S. 222.
2. Upon the ratification of the Twenty-first Amendment, the Eighteenth Amendment became inoperative, and neither the Congress nor the courts could give it continued validity. P. 291 U. S. 222.
3. The National Prohibition Act, to the extent that its provisions rested upon the grant of authority to Congress by the Eighteenth Amendment, immediately fell with the withdrawal by the people of the essential constitutional support. P. 291 U. S. 222.
4. Prosecutions for violations of the National Prohibition Act in a state, pending when the Eighteenth Amendment was repealed, cannot be continued. P. 291 U. S. 222.
Page 291 U. S. 218
5. In case a statute is repealed or rendered inoperative, no further proceedings can be had to enforce it in pending prosecutions unless competent authority has kept it alive for that purpose. P. 291 U. S. 223.
6. Section 13 of the Revised Statutes, providing that penalties and liabilities incurred under a statute are not to be extinguished by its repeal unless the repealing act shall so expressly provide, etc., is inapplicable where the statute imposing the penalties is rendered inoperative by the power of the people exercised through a constitutional amendment. P. 291 U. S. 223.
7. Instances in which Congress has provided for the transfer of cases pending in territorial courts as an incident to the exercise of its power to admit new states into the Union present no analogy to a case in which the power of Congress over the subject matter has been withdrawn by a constitutional amendment. P. 291 U. S. 225.
8. Prosecution for crimes is but an application or enforcement of the law, and if the prosecution is to continue, the law must continue to vivify it. P. 291 U. S. 226.
9. It is a continuing and vital principle that the people are free to withdraw authority which they have conferred, and, when withdrawn, neither Congress nor the courts can assume the right to continue to exercise it. P. 291 U. S. 226.
5 F. Supp. 153 affirmed.
Appeal under the Criminal Appeals Act from a judgment quashing an indictment for conspiracy to violate the National Prohibition Act, and for possessing and transporting intoxicating liquor in violation of that Act.
They are dropping all simple possession charges. That won’t make a huge difference, though, they were as a rule not charging simple possession in most areas. Besides, Prosecutors will always tack on anything they think will possibly stick in order to coerce a guilty plea to lesser charges.
Buprenorphine used by patients with opioid use disorder is safe to use with benzodiazepines while still reducing ODs:
UNLV Neuroscientists discuss their latest research in psychedelic neuroscience as it relates to treatment of major depression: