One person can make a difference

Seattle’s new city attorney to dismiss cases of pot possession

City Attorney Pete Holmes, who beat incumbent Tom Carr in November, said he dismissed two marijuana-related cases in his first day on the job, and several others are about to be dismissed.

In addition, his new criminal division chief, Craig Sims, said he is reviewing about 50 more cases. Unless there are “out of the ordinary circumstances,” Sims said, the office doesn’t intend to file charges for marijuana possession.

“We’re not going to prosecute marijuana-possession cases anymore,” Holmes said Thursday during a public interview as part of Town Hall’s Nightcap series. “I meant it when I said it” during the campaign.

We need more people like Pete Holmes running for city attorney and attorney general. How about some of you?

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to One person can make a difference

  1. BruceM says:

    The problem is when he runs for re-election, his opponents will call him “soft on crime” while repeating the mantra of “the precious children, the precious children, the precious children” over and over again, so as to win by a landslide victory. Having some uber-dubious statistics like “marijuana user whose case was dismissed by Pete Holmes lived within 1000 yards of a child rapist” will secure such a victory.

  2. kaptinemo says:

    Bruce, even the droning mantra of the ‘the precious children’ will find itself drowned out by the angry growl of the parents of those children who are facing fiscal Armageddon and don’t want to hear that their unemployment bennies are about to run out…but we have to keep financing prisons to lock up non-violent offenders. Lead balloons would have greater aerodynamic potential of flight than that p*ss-poor excuse ever will.

    I keep recalling what Churchill said about Americans: “You can always count on Americans to do the right thing – after they’ve tried everything else.” When it comes to the DrugWar, we’re at that point, now.

    We’ve ‘tried everything else’ regarding the DrugWar and attempted to incarcerate our way out of a social and health problem. The ideology behind that kind of thinking has proven itself to be as much a failure as the policies that that thinking produced. And a savvy pol can make tons of political hay out of that as a defense.

  3. tint guy says:

    Kudos to the man for doing the right thing — what he said he would do if elected. Not a lot of that going around in politics today.

  4. DavesNotHere says:

    If only we could get a President that would do the right thing for a change. Obama refuses to allow medical marijuana science, the exact same policy as Bush!

    Researchers Find Study of Medical Marijuana Discouraged

    Holmes promised to change marijuana policy before he was elected and he’s doing it now he’s in office. That is how it works. This guy didn’t change his mind about the policy half way through his reign.

    One vote can make a difference. Vote for people like Holmes that are in favor of real change before the election and you might get it, instead of people like Obama who will continue waging war on innocent human beings.

    You want a President that will lift the Democrat Party platform encrusted ban on marijuana science? Make sure they hold that position before the election instead of hoping for change after you’ve given them the guns.

  5. truthtechnician says:

    One bad person can ruin everything. One good person can fix everything.

  6. BruceM says:

    Bruce, even the droning mantra of the ‘the precious children’ will find itself drowned out by the angry growl of the parents of those children who are facing fiscal Armageddon and don’t want to hear that their unemployment bennies are about to run out.

    Oh come on, people have been voting themselves bankrupt and tossing away their rights for DECADES under the guise of “protecting the precious children.” Why would that suddenly change now?

    The only way to get “the children” out of politics is to revoke the 19th Amendment and not allow women to vote anymore. Which would be unfair. But as long as 50% of the population is guided by the maternal instinct, and the other half of the population wants to put their penises in the half that’s guided by the maternal instict, “the precious children” will continue to cause the vast majority of people to vote irrationally and against their better interests.

    It’s an abuse of evolution. Females of all types of animals have evolved to protect and favor the next generation at the expense of the current generation. That’s evolved over billions of years of evolution. Any danger to “the children” will be guarded against, no matter how irrational or untrue it may factually be. And as I’ve said before, the argument that “the precious children” are in danger that requires the least amount of thought or fewest logical connections will always win. As long as people think drugs are dangerous to children, this will never change.

    Unfortunately most people here would agree that drugs are dangerous to children, and that children should not use them.

    Interestingly, there are some limits to how far people will go to protect the children. We could save thousands of children if we made a nationwide speed limit of 5mph on every road in the country. But even knowing this would save countless children from horrible bloody mangled deaths, few if any people would agree that we should not be allowed to drive over 5mph. Isn’t that interesting? I’m fascinated by finding the limits of how far “the children” arguments can go.

  7. Pingback: uberVU - social comments

  8. Servetus says:

    This is how a lot of archaic law gets eliminated. It’s not ignored, and it’s not enforced. Blue laws remain on the books for decades because no political opportunist wants to confront a controversial issue like heresy, sex, drugs, and rock’n’roll just to clean up the judicial system’s version of a malware.

    So Seattle’s City Attorney quarantined the pot law virus? Right on, Pete Holmes. Whatever works.

  9. DavesNotHere says:

    They just interviewed Peter Holmes on KUOW radio.

    He said he will be releasing a “letter” soon concerning the two pieces of decrim/legal legislation pending in WA, so I’ll look for that. Good interview that might be available online soon.

Comments are closed.