Sep 232014
 September 23, 2014

oregon measure 91 legalization new approachOregon’s former U.S. Attorney, one of the most respected prosecutors in the state, has endorsed Measure 91, which would regulate, legalize and tax marijuana for adults 21 and older.

Kris Olson has worked in justice and law enforcement for more than 40 years. “I enforced our marijuana laws, and they don’t work,” she said. “Filling our courts and jails has failed to reduce marijuana use, and drug cartels are pocketing all the profits.”

Olson joins several other high-profile supporters of Measure 91, including former Oregon Supreme Court Justice Bill Riggs and former Addictions and Mental Health Services of Oregon director Richard Harris. Hundreds of other Oregonians and some of the state’s most prominent organizations have also endorsed the measure.

Oregon has one of the highest marijuana arrest rates in the country, with seven percent — or about one in 14 — of all arrests for simple marijuana possession. People of color are more than twice as likely to be arrested for marijuana in Oregon despite no disparity in use.

“With the limited resources law enforcement has, police need to be focused on things that are a real threat to our community, not marijuana,” Olson said. “We want them to be spending their time on real problems: dangerous, addictive drugs like meth and heroin, and, most of all, violent crime.”

Olson served as a federal prosecutor from 1974-1984; Associate Dean and Professor of Law at Lewis & Clark from 1984-1994; Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area Commissioner from 1987 to1994; United States Attorney for the District of Oregon from 1994 to 2001; and Senior Counsel to Congressman Earl Blumenauer from 2001 to 2003.

Comments

comments

About Johnny Green

Dissenting opinions are welcome, insults and personal attacks are discouraged and hate speech will not be tolerated. Spammers and people trying to buy or sell cannabis or any drugs will be banned. Read our comment policy and FAQ for more information

  13 Responses to “Retired Chief Federal Prosecutor: Vote Yes To Regulate Marijuana”

  1.  

    Shit may roll downhill, but knowledge slowly seeps up.

  2.  

    I favor legalization but I think we sold the ranch on this one. Some examples: Sec 1h makes it illegal by state law to posses mj on “federal property, which I read to mean you can’t have mj out in the middle of national forest or BLM desert. The legislation prohibits use in a public place but does not define public place. It defines an immature plant as one that has no flowers or “buds” not making it clear that the buds in question are flower buds. All immature plants have buds – leaf buds. Sec 64 allows the confiscation of “music devices” as part of the spoils from a mj arrest – wtf?. The taxation rate a $35/oz is excessive at approx. 15-20% at todays prices and maybe quite a bit higher percent should the price of mj drop as the result of legalization. 91 is far too restrictive, far too complicated. We have public opinion now and there’s no reason for us to go out of our way to voluntarily restrict our own freedoms in this way. I can’t support this proposal.

    •  

      All of these talking points are red herrings. News flash: all of that stuff is already illegal under current law. Given that, why are you falsely portraying measure 91 as if it would somehow create new prohibitions, when in reality, it does nothing of the sort? So I guess you’d rather just maintain all of those prohibitions, plus the ones that measure 91 removes, such as a felony charge for possession of more than 4 oz under current law, changed to legal for up to 8 oz under 91, or allowing any adult to grow their own cannabis? Yeah, that makes a lot of sense.

      •  

        Huh? Did you read my first sentence? Did you comprehend what I wrote? All I’m saying is 91 is a half a loaf and we should go for a whole loaf. As for what you claim are red herrings, what in your opinion makes them red herrings? You didn’t provide the basis for your name calling. What did I write to “mislead and confuse” you specifically?

        •  

          At this point half of loaf is better than none. Measure 91 certainly has it’s flaws, such as the limit of 4 plants per residence, but in the context of the federal government classifying it as among the most dangerous of drugs along side heroin it is significant step forward. One of many steps being taken by states and municipalities that are defying the unjustifiable federal prohibition against what is arguably the most beneficial and useful plant that grows on the Earth.

          The momentum of these combined small and imperfect steps can build to a stampede that will implode the incoherent and irrational federal prohibition laws against cannabis.

          •  

            I totally agree with you on the absurd and tragic federal classification of MJ as Schedule I and rarely does a week go by that I don’t complain about that to some politician. It should be replaced with alcohol and tobacco and maybe hight fructose corn syrup! I hope you are right about Measure 91 but I fear we will regret not taking this farther now that we have the momentum, and I’m concerned that half a loaf now will be all we get for a long, long time.

    •  

      I see what you mean about the ranch.

    •  

      I always worry that the “half loaf” reform will bite us in the rearend as well but I would rather take a half loaf then maintain the current position of moldy crusts that we keep in lieu of taking any forward steps. In the SE I would give my left testicle to have even a rational discussion about reform and here you all have a chance at something to move forward and many do not see the glass as half full. Again I understand your position but man the chance to neuter the prohibitionists even a little is huge compared to the tyranny I live under down South. Good Luck brother.

  3.  

    You know what I am getting sick of hearing, all these FORMER-RETIRED son of a bitches, that profited off prohibition all the way to retirement, finally saying they support regulation and legalization. These PUSSIES should have stepped up long before now and done what they so righteously are doing now, when they have nothing to lose. I am very grateful for all the current leaders that have the balls to speak up now, in the moment. I know we should all be happy we are getting thrown a bone by these RETIRED professionals but it just pisses me off that they only have the courage to do the right thing after a career of fucking us and hiding behind the law while just “doing their jobs”.

    •  

      “these pussies” “hiding behind” coming from a keyboard in a basement from someone hiding behind a fake name. #rich

      •  

        The fact that you have no argument other than pathetic attempts to insult show your place in this conversation. You also must be short bus bright to fail to see the point of hypocrites post. He may be coarse but he has a point. These guys only seem to step up after they have nursed on the prohibition tit for their entire career. You are a real gem there “Steve” to overlook the fact that everyone uses a fake name on message boards and him posting his real name would not make his point any more or less valid.

    •  

      ” I am getting sick of hearing, all these FORMER-RETIRED son of a bitches”

      Excellent.My thoughts precisely

  4.  

    I generally don’t have much good to say about some law officials. So it’s wonderful that I can say

 Leave a Reply