![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
So, like most states, Washington had a law on the books that made possessing certain "hard" drugs a felony. If any are found in your possession--in your clothing, in your house, in your car, in your bag, whatever--that's an automatic felony. And it's the basis of a TON of the current prison-industrial complex, because it's leverage they can use. For example, while there's no way of knowing what percentage of felony drug charges are based on drugs the cops planted so they'd be able to get someone to testify against someone the cops wanted evidence against, we know that it can and does happen. It's easy for the cops, and there's pretty much no defense against it.
As of February 25, that is no longer the case in Washington state. The State Supreme Court declared it to be unconstitutional, because it is based on a presumption of guilt. Instead of "innocent until proven guilty" it's "guilty until proven innocent." The case that was decided this way was about a woman who was visiting a friend when the cops showed up at the door. She put on pants to go open the door; the pants belonged to the person she was staying with. Cops searched her, and found illegal narcotics in her pocket. She didn't put them there, she owned neither the pants nor the drugs, but she was the one charged with felony possession because according to the law, nothing matters except the fact that they were in the pocket of pants she was wearing, therefore she is the one to go down for it. And so the State Supreme Court struck down the law.
I read an article about this in the local paper with lots of quotes from the county sherriff about how terrible this is and how it's going to destroy their ability to police the community and how many people are being released with charges dropped because all they had on them was possession and also there's going to be a huge spike in drug use.
Me: ... the only one of these things that sounds like a problem is the predicted spike in drug use, and that's something that the cops shouldn't be handling in the first place, that should be handled by social services.
Now, the state legislature could of course write a new bill that criminalizes felony drug use but is written differently and doesn't presume guilt, but it's too late in the current legislative session for that to happen this year, so it'll be next year at the very earliest before anything could be done. And, you know, instead of defending the status quo, the people trying to criminalize it will at that point be changing the status quo. It should be easier to defeat any such hypothetical bill than it would have been to get the old one repealed.
As of February 25, that is no longer the case in Washington state. The State Supreme Court declared it to be unconstitutional, because it is based on a presumption of guilt. Instead of "innocent until proven guilty" it's "guilty until proven innocent." The case that was decided this way was about a woman who was visiting a friend when the cops showed up at the door. She put on pants to go open the door; the pants belonged to the person she was staying with. Cops searched her, and found illegal narcotics in her pocket. She didn't put them there, she owned neither the pants nor the drugs, but she was the one charged with felony possession because according to the law, nothing matters except the fact that they were in the pocket of pants she was wearing, therefore she is the one to go down for it. And so the State Supreme Court struck down the law.
I read an article about this in the local paper with lots of quotes from the county sherriff about how terrible this is and how it's going to destroy their ability to police the community and how many people are being released with charges dropped because all they had on them was possession and also there's going to be a huge spike in drug use.
Me: ... the only one of these things that sounds like a problem is the predicted spike in drug use, and that's something that the cops shouldn't be handling in the first place, that should be handled by social services.
Now, the state legislature could of course write a new bill that criminalizes felony drug use but is written differently and doesn't presume guilt, but it's too late in the current legislative session for that to happen this year, so it'll be next year at the very earliest before anything could be done. And, you know, instead of defending the status quo, the people trying to criminalize it will at that point be changing the status quo. It should be easier to defeat any such hypothetical bill than it would have been to get the old one repealed.
