Eureka Gone to Pot

[Dardedar]

Initiative puts city on national press map
Has the town gone to pot?

Terry Shirley
Updated: 11/15/2006

EUREKA SPRINGS – What does the passage of the marijuana initiative really mean to the city? Does it make us “Little Amsterdam?” Does it mean that smoking a “J” is a less serious offense than jaywalking? How does it change law enforcement’s attitude toward enforcement of the law?
  The answers, according to Police Chief Earl Hyatt: “It’s symbolic. No. No. And it doesn’t.
  “It doesn’t change the law at all,” Hyatt told the Citizen. “It does make a statement from the folks of Eureka Springs as a message to state and federal governments. But it doesn’t change the law at all. We don’t have the authority as a city to do so,” Hyatt said.
  “This doesn’t really change the current enforcement status of simple possession of marijuana,” Hyatt explained. “Simple possession of less than an ounce is a misdemeanor in Arkansas. And because it’s a nonviolent misdemeanor, officers have the discretion of whether or not to make a charge.
  “In Eureka Springs, it is not uncommon for an officer to pour marijuana out and rub it into the dirt – and then tell the offender to go home.
  “We just don’t have time to go out and actively search for people in possession of misdemeanor amounts of marijuana,”
Hyatt said.
  Hyatt said he had been taking calls from press all over the country for the past few days.

Everybody’s not happy
  Groups such as the Arkansas Family Council Action Committee do not approve of the initiative, according to a report from the Associated Press (AP).
  The AP, which picked up the story last week, quotes the council’s executive director, Jerry Cox, as saying, “The measure in Eureka Springs, I believe, sends the wrong message to our young people that somehow using illegal drugs is OK.
  “In Arkansas, I believe most parents believe the use of illegal drugs, especially by their children, always is wrong.
  “Eureka Springs may be the only city in Arkansas where a measure like this would receive any significant support among the local citizens,” Cox said.
  Ryan Denham, a campaign director for Fayetteville’s chapter of the National Organization for Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML), told the Citizen that neither his group nor the initiative supported usage of marijuana by children – or by adults, for that matter.
  The AP also quotes Denham: “For the first time in Arkansas history, citizens have had an opportunity to voice their opinion on America’s failed marijuana laws.
  “Eureka Springs citizens would rather police focus on violent crimes and property crimes, and not spend their limited resources targeting, arresting and prosecuting minor marijuana offenders,” Denham said.

...

the rest

[Barbara Fitzpatrick]

"how long, oh lord..." Texas prisons are full of people pulled in for possession of an ounce or less. Anybody who wants to change that is accused of being "soft on crime" - wish the gud xtians would go back and re-read Paul - "without the law there is no sin" - If you decriminalize mj, you can use the prisons for violent criminals. The whole thing is a control issue. The old "I TOLD you not to do that" - child abusers turn into everybody abusers.

[Hogeye]

David Friedman (son of the late Milton Friedman) has written about the economic logic of victimless crime laws. With winner-take-all democracy, the prohibition question is: Do I want to prevent others from smoking pot? In market-generated law, the question would be: Do I want to pay an extra $200 a year to prevent others from smoking pot?

Statist law allows shoving the costs onto others, so promotes busybodies, social engineering, and vice laws. If people had to pay the costs, many would think twice about trying to coerce their neighbors. Friedman opines that, in a free society, marijuana would be legal almost everywhere (as tokers would "outbid" busybodies), but heroin would only be legal in some large cities (as other locations don't have enough junkies to "outbid" busybodies.) For more, read The Machinery of Freedom.

[Barbara Fitzpatrick]

Nonsense. The majority of people in America don't want the drug laws we have. If the drug laws were based on a "winner take all democracy" we wouldn't be having this argument. The drug laws are a textbook case of corruption in government. Whether it's the drug industry money or the organized crime money or both, our legislators vote with their pocketbooks as augmented by bribes of one sort or another.

[Hogeye]

The majority of people in America don't want the drug laws we have.

True. Some would strengthen drug laws, some would weaken them. It is obvious that the majority of Americans would disagree with the exact formulation of some drug laws. But what if there were a poll with the following questions?

Congress shall make no law respecting the use, production, possession, or sale of any food, drug, or crop.

Or more specifically:
Congress shall make no law respecting the use, production, possession, or sale of cannabis.
Congress shall make no law respecting the use, production, possession, or sale of cocaine.
Congress shall make no law respecting the use, production, possession, or sale of methamphetamine.
Congress shall make no law respecting the use, production, possession, or sale of heroin.

I suspect that all would fail, and all but cannabis would fail overwhelmingly.

Probably such a poll has been taken at http://www.essembly.com/ but that is mostly young people with too much time on their hands. I just looked, and legalizing pot has overwhelming support. I just added the resolution: "Congress shall make no law respecting the use, production, possession, or sale of any food, drug, or crop." Here's a link attempt to the resolution.

[Dardedar]

I just looked, and legalizing pot has overwhelming support.

DAR
Not in scientific polls it doesn't. Online voluntary polls are for entertainment and mean nothing.

***
Marijuana: In Latest Gallup Poll, 36 Percent Say Legalize It -- Half in the West Are Ready 11/4/05

Support for the legalization of marijuana is at an all-time high, with 36% of adults agreeing that we should free the weed, according to a Gallup poll released Tuesday. In the West, support for marijuana legalization is nearly a majority position, with 47% of Westerners agreeing that pot should be legal.

Gallup has periodically polled Americans on the issue since 1969, when only 12% endorsed legalization. By 1977, support peaked at 28%, then declined into the mid- and low 20s during the dark years of the Reagan era. Support for marijuana legalization did not exceed 1970s levels again until 2000, when 31% approved. Since 2000, support for legalization has continued to edge up.

Meanwhile, the number of people who want to keep marijuana illegal hovers at 60%. Opposition to legalization is declining slowly from a recent high of 73% ten years ago and an all-time high of 84% in 1969.

Support for legalization varies by age, gender, location, and political persuasion. Among young adults (18 to 29), nearly half (47%) are in favor, but that figure declines dramatically with age. Among 30-to-64-year-olds, only 35% favor legalization, and among the senior set (65 or older), the figure declines to 22%. Men tend to favor legalization more than women, with 44% of men aged 18 to 49 agreeing, compared to only 34% of women in the same age group. The numbers decline with age for both sexes.

In terms of geography, the West is the most pot-friendly part of the country, a finding Gallup suggested could be related to the prevalence of legal medical marijuana there. 47% of Westerners said legalize it, compared to 33% in the Midwest and 34% in the East. Anti-reefer sentiment is strongest in the South, where only 29% approved of legalization.

Church attendance and support for legalization are negatively correlated. The more likely you are to attend weekly church services, the less likely you are to support legalization. Only 17% of regular church-goers supported it, compared to 49% of those who never or rarely go to church.

In terms of political affiliation, Democrats are more likely to support legalization than Republicans by a substantial margin, 37% to 21%. Independents were more likely than members of either party to support legalization, with 44% in favor. By ideological position, a majority of self-described liberals (54%) supported legalization, 36% of moderates did, and only 22% of conservatives.

http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/410/gallup.shtml

[Betsy]

This just released today from the local group:

POLL SHOWS INCREASED SUPPORT FOR MARIJUANA LAW REFORM

Fayetteville, AR: Nearly two-thirds of Arkansas voters support reduced penalties for marijuana offenses, according to a new poll conducted by Zogby International of Utica New York. Survey results are strikingly similar to the vote count for the Eureka Springs ballot initiative which instructs local law enforcement officials to consider marijuana offenses their lowest priority, which passed by a 63% to 37% margin.

Support for the statewide question on reduced penalties comes from a majority of people in nearly every sub-group, with 36% who "strongly" support the reform and 25% who "somewhat" support it. Of those opposing reform, 13% somewhat oppose and 22% strongly oppose. Four percent were not sure.

Largest supporters include 80% or slightly more of Democrats, those who voted Beebe for governor, African Americans, single adults, Protestants who do not consider themselves born-again, and people who belong to "other or no" religion. Two-thirds to 70% of independent voters, 30-49 year-olds, women, and people with household income less than $50,000, and $75,000-$99,999 or more are also in support.

Slight majorities in support are seniors 65 and older (53%), married adults (53%), parents/guardians of children under 17 living at home (51%), and men (55%).

Majorities of Republicans (64%), Hutchinson supporters (66%), born-again Christians (56%), and people with household income of $50,000-$74,999 (58%) oppose such reforms.

The question stated: "In Arkansas over the last three years, over 7,000 adults per year have been arrested for marijuana while about 2,500 people have been arrested for all other drugs combined, including methamphetamine. Considering the documented danger of some of those other drugs compared to marijuana and the limits of our tax-supported prison system, do you –support/oppose– a law that would reduce the penalties for marijuana?

"We see these results as further evidence that the public is tired of ineffective and wasteful government policies," stated Ms. Campbell. "The voters demonstrated their readiness for change in this election. These survey responses are simply a further reflection of that mind set."

Surveyors posed a second question to voters, asking whether they supported a law that would allow people with cancer and other debilitating medical conditions to register in a state-regulated program permitting them to grow and use a limited amount of marijuana for medical purposes. Polling results show that a 64% majority support such a law, 40% strongly and 24% somewhat. Those opposed were 7% somewhat opposed and 27% strongly opposed, with 3% not sure. Four other polls on this question, conducted between 2000 and 2004, found 63 - 65% in support.

"Reform efforts in Arkansas will continue educational programs about failed drug policies," continued Ms. Campbell. "People agree that improved treatment options and better early education are the best approaches for dealing with addiction. Arrest and jail time are not an effective or humane response to drug use. As for personal use of marijuana among adults, as this survey shows there is widespread support for changing laws so that nonviolent offenses don’t overload our criminal justice system. Many states have effectively decriminalized marijuana, only issuing citations and assessing small fines for personal amounts. We will continue to do what we can to move Arkansas toward drug policies that cause less harm to our families and communities."

For this survey, Zogby International conducted interviews of Arkansas voters who participated in the November 8 election. The margin of error is +/- 4.9 percentage points. The poll was commissioned by Drug Policy Education Group, Inc., an Arkansas non-profit which has been active in drug policy reform since 2000. An exit poll in 2004 asked voters the same question on reduction of penalties for marijuana offenses, and results were 48% in support and 49% opposed, with a margin of error of 4.8%.

[Barbara Fitzpatrick]

Much of the survey data differences are based on the way the question is phrased. "Decriminalization" gets solid support, while "legalization" depends totally on whether you ask about medical or recreational usage - and even then it's under 50% in most areas. As to the fundies being anti-legalization, that's no surprise. They are "the law is the law" people, or they wouldn't be fundies in the first place. Same thing as RC priests objecting to female or married priests - the law is holy and changing the law is sin (probably having a "I couldn't so nobody else should either" component) - changing laws threatens their world view.

[LaWood]

What we saw during the Nevada campaign of '04 was the government using our money to campaign against med MJ. What a crock of shit. Asa was great for this type of stuff as well as harassing cancer patients in Calif where medical mj was legalized. I felt so damn good when that neo-Nazi was defeated.

If somehow the federalies could be made to stay neutral on the issue opinions would slowly but surely change.

How are they ever gonna erradicate a weed that has grown prolifically from sea to shining sea since colonial times when it was a required crop. It was the most widespread pain killer used following our Civil War.

I recall one summer in the late sixties a group of us planted 1,000 patches around the state with a minimum of 20 plants per patch. Great fun.

[Hogeye]

As to the fundies being anti-legalization, that's no surprise.

It's one of those "pick and choose" scriptural things we were talking about in another thread. They seem to forget about the one that says God gave to man all the seed-bearing plants. Nor do they realize that if Christ was truly the annointed one, then he had cannabis oil gunk put on his head.

[Barbara Fitzpatrick]

Jesus wasn't annointed by the priests - that's why Jews didn't accept him as the messiah. Calling him by what literally translates as annointed is just one more christian "faith" thing. And yes, if our tax dollars weren't being spent to campaign against mj, we could get it decriminalized coast to coast and border to border at least before my grandkids grow up.