The SunBreak
posted 05/20/10 05:06 PM | updated 05/20/10 05:06 PM
Featured Post! | Views: 0 | Comments : 4 | Politics

Drug Task Force Raids Medical Pot Dispensary, Walks Off with Legalization Signatures

By Michael van Baker
Editor
Recommend this story (0 votes)
Share

Sensible Washington, the people behind the I-1068 marijuana legalization initiative, are dealing with some collateral damage to the democratic process. After last week's raid on a medical marijuana dispensary, Tacoma's North End Club 420, drug enforcement officers walked off with about a dozen signature-laden copies of the initiative as evidence.

Sensible Washington would like the petitions back:

We have made repeated calls to WestNet’s office, but have yet to receive any assurance that the task force’s personnel have secured the signed petitions and that they plan to promptly return them to Sensible Washington.

Subsequent to the raid, Seattle Weekly reports, detectives visited the home of the patient coordinator of North End Club 420, Christine Casey, who alleges they "handcuffed her 14-year-old son for two hours and put a gun to his head."

This puts a new spin on the debate over whether petition signatures should be public or not. In this case, it's a multi-jurisdictional federally funded narcotics task force that is in possession of about 200 names and addresses from people willing to support marijuana legalization. I think the words "chilling effect" were coined for precisely this kind of situation.

Looking on the bright side, the raid publicizes the argument the pro-legalization group is making for them. With a federal deficit of $1.42 trillion for fiscal year 2009, the government is paying for a major anti-drug operations targeting medical marijuana dispensaries. Useful?

Meanwhile, Sensible Washington has spent only about $20,000 to fund its operations so far. (You can donate or get information on volunteering on their site.) Organizer Philip Dawdy says that so far the lone Washington county without signed support for I-1068 is Wahkiakum, and that he believes the validation rate will be fairly high.

The group recently shipped its collection of signatures off to California for a professional validation check, and will be releasing news of its progress toward the signature goal shortly.

Save and Share this article
Permalink
Tags: legalization, I-1068, raid, medical marijuana, dispensary, westnet, club 420, petitions, signatures, philip dawdy, sensible washington + add tags
savecancel
CommentsRSS Feed
why we need to
This is precisely why we need to decriminalize Cannabis. The bastards at WestNet you bet are copying all those signatures AND address's ,YES talk about a "chilling effect" . How do you think those citizens feel knowing that a drug task force (insert Nazi storm troopers)has their information to use as they please, for WHAT ? Exercising their rights as citizens to petition their government..What do you call it when citizens live in fear of their government??
Comment by Dude
5 months ago
( 0 votes)
( report abuse ) ( )
RE: why we need to
Pretty clear that the sigs need to be returned asap. They're not germane to the case as hand (however good or bad that case is).

But the 'chilling effect' argument... Isn't this exactly what the recent Supreme Court r71 case is all about? I'm ready to out the bastards that tried to pass R71. Please explain the difference in this case.

Seems pretty clear the Supremes are poised to make this a moot argument regardless. If you sign an initiative, there ARE consequences.
Comment by bilco
5 months ago
( 0 votes)
( report abuse ) ( )
this issue is not similar to R71 case
Hey bilco -- The US Supreme Court decision in the R71 case will not moot the "chilling effect" argument in the Kitsap County case.

You asked someone to please explain the difference. So I will try.

In my opinion.The situations are not factually similar. At least not in several important respects: (1) who has access to the petitions;(2) do they already have them or is there just a possibility they might obtain them in the future; (3) their intent in obtaining them; (4) what will they know about the signers by virtue of where they obtained them; (5) and how do they intend to use the information if they already have it or if they obtain it in the future.

In the R71 case the US Supreme Court is looking at a case about the public in general possibly viewing and copying referendum petitions which could have come from many different locations all over the state. The first amendment issue is whether a "chilling effect" occurs, meaning will you as a potential signer be afraid to sign if you know other people might find out you signed? Those people could be anybody, and you might be worried about someone in particular discovering you signed. Like your boss, maybe?

By contrast, the Kitsap county case is about a federally funded swat team seizing initiative petitions as "evidence" in a criminal drug raid. The first amendment issue here is whether a "chilling effect" occurs, meaning will you as a potential signer be afraid to sign if you know the cops are seizing petitions as evidence of criminal activity--and they will know (or presume) exactly where you signed it--and you will be presumed to have signed it at a medical marijuana dispensary?

In my opinion the Kitsap county situation seems highly likely to scare off potential signers. Whereas the R71 situation seems mild in comparison. The higher the fear factor, the higher the likelihood of "chilling effect." That's my take on why they are different.
Comment by scarltz
5 months ago
( 0 votes)
( report abuse ) ( )
RE: this issue is not similar to R71 case
Let me be clear in my opinion on this one, scarltz - and I appreciate your thoughtful reply.

It seems to me that the real issue at stake in the R71 case is not really who signed R71 in particular. The real issue is that if the Court decides that the signatories of an initiative have their names displayed to the world, that is 'chilling' for future initiative signers. No matter what the issue, liberal or conservative, if you're signing a measure that contradicts established law or cultural mores, you'll have to stand up for your beliefs.

Basically, I think that's a good thing. And to clarify, I'm both pro-gay rights (AKA human rights) and pro-pot.

If all initiatives have their signing sheets made public, won't the cops get this information anyway?

I think the violation here is that the initiative proponents have been deprived of their signatures.
Comment by bilco
5 months ago
( 0 votes)
( report abuse ) ( )
Add Your Comment
Name:
Email:
(will not be displayed)
Subject:
Comment: