Marijuana.com

Lothar121

West Hollywood Wants to Legalize Pot Use
Ashraf Khalil and Arin Gencer | LA Times | 06/20/06

First West Hollywood officials required that pet owners be known as "pet guardians." Then they banned cat declawing and even considered outlawing pet cosmetic surgery.

On Monday, the Westside town famous for its novelmunicipal lawmaking took a stab at legalizing the recreational use of small amounts of marijuana.

The City Council approved a resolution that urges the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department to make marijuana-related offenses a "low priority" that deputies should largely ignore.

In doing so, it became the first city in Southern California to request that its law enforcement agency look the other way at recreational pot use and target only the sale of marijuana.

The vote was taken despite concerns from some residents and top aides of Sheriff Lee Baca, who had urged the council to delay the vote.

Councilman John Duran proposed the resolution, saying that deputies have more important things to worry about than arresting people with small amounts of pot. Instead, he said, deputies could focus on more destructive drugs like crystal methamphetamine.

"We've seen that marijuana use is certainly no more dangerous and destructive than alcohol use," Duran said. "The whole 'reefer madness' hysteria has worn thin."

Duran said he knew that the resolution would put Baca in an "awkward position," but said it was important for the city to take a stand.

"I don't think we were ever going to get the sheriff to support it," he said.

San Francisco and Oakland have passed similar rules. But unlike those cities, West Hollywood lacks its own police force. Instead it contracts with the county sheriff for police services.

Sheriff's Department officials said they were worried about the message being sent if law enforcement was asked to selectively enforce state law.

"As sworn personnel they have certain obligations to uphold," said Jeff Prang, a West Hollywood councilman who also is a special aide to Baca.

Prang abstained on Monday's vote. The resolution passed 4 to 0.

Baca tried to be conciliatory Monday, saying he believes that city leaders are being pressed by pot legalization forces in the region to take a stand on the issue.

"We certainly in my office understand what pressure is," Baca said. "My belief is that the city needs to have its voice heard on the matter, and the question will remain to what extent is this resolution binding…. We will look at it for all of our pluses and minuses and advise the City Council as to our position."

The city of 35,000 has no power to compel the department to comply with the resolution.

Theoretically, if the department refuses, the city could end its $10-million law enforcement contract with the sheriff and use another area police department. But that probably would not occur.

"That would put us in a very awkward situation," Duran said.

How much would the resolution change West Hollywood? The Sheriff's Department already places a low priority on simple possession and personal consumption of pot.

__________________

Donate. Write. Make a difference..
Libertyindex | Posting Guidelines | Marijuana Policy Project | NORML | DPA | Drug WarRant | Media Awareness Project

 

kinghelwig

Well,I did live to finally see the day where pot has been put at such a low priority,as to be practically legal.It was like that in early 70's they were trying to be more concerned with LSD and it worked,now it's meth,as has been for a couple of years now and rightfully so,speed kills,however dont discard these drugs completely there are sick people out there,as there always has been that need drugs for one thing or another,but pot is a drug also,if properly prescribed by a doctor, or recommened I should say,then like all other drugs use it as prescribed,your legal,alcolhol kills too I drank heavily for years,and am paying the price now,its not tooooooo late I'll live a few more years hopefully,we all screw up somewhere in life,it's funny,the first i.e. durg that I did was LSD,it lead me to marijuana,which is good for all kinds of ailments,it was put here for a purpose,makes strong rope,eat it,drink it,smoke it,grow it,and use it,that's what it was put here for.

butyleson

I think this must have been the wrong article or something. The headline says WeHo wants to legalize pot, yet not a single mention of this was in the actual article.
Of course, that's not really a surprise.

troublemaker_42

HUH? That was the basis of the entire article! What are talking about when you say it wasn't even mentioned?

Lothar121

buty, what are you talking about?

 

butyleson

Well, I didn't realize that legalization was the same as instructing police to consider it a "low priority". If that's the case, then I guess a lot of places in the US have legalized pot. I had previously thought Denver was the only jurisdiction that had done that. I guess I stand corrected.

Plainsman1963

I agree that they seemed to be throwing the word "legalization" around when all I could see was the subject of "low priority". Non-binding as well so kind of ironic that the word "legalization" was used.

Here is another article where they talk more about the alleged reasoning behind the non-binding resolution.

Btw, it just seems wrong for a member that joined in 2001 to have 10 posts and be considered a "new member"...Where ya been?

__________________


"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards." - Claire Wolfe

Posting Guidelines

butyleson

You know, I could not agree more. Obviously, it goes by the # of posts. But, I've been here regularly since '01. I'm just more of a reader than a poster. I've learned a ton here. In fact, if they ranked users by the amount of time, or total page visits they make to the site, I think I'd be pretty high up there. (pun intended) It's rare that a day goes by that I don't spend some time here. Oh well, maybe I'll start being more vocal and make up some ground.



Btw, it just seems wrong for a member that joined in 2001 to have 10 posts and be considered a "new member"...Where ya been? [/quote]

troublemaker_42

OK, that makes sense. I was actually arguing your position recently over at the 420 lounge I agree that the 'resolution" really is meaningless, especially since personal possession is already a low priority in all of california, only resulting in a $100 fine for possession of 1 oz or less. I too jumped all over the terminology used, as this isn't true legalization by a long shot

Lothar121

Thanks for clarifying and I agree. The media is completely confused on what terms mean regarding drug legalization, drug decriminalization, and drug deprioritization. The title of the article is that they "want" to legalize marijuana, not that they did. There is a difference.

I believe this is one of the five local areas that have or are working to deprioritize their law enforcement in regards to adult marijuana consumers. The overall effort is to reach more support for a 2008 initiative that would legalize marijuana throughout California.