Detroit Voters Can Decriminalize Psychedelic Plants This November
Policy
The proposal asks voters if the city should "decriminalize to the fullest extent permitted under Michigan law the personal possession and therapeutic use of entheogenic plants by adults."
Hi James!
I wanted to note a few things:
1) I LOVE that you raised attention about Decrim Nature’s dismissal of the NAC’s concerns & the fact that this resolution ignored those concerns as well. Spot-on! You’re one of the few journalists I know who reported that.
2) The last paragraph was terrific, captures the sentiments of many people in the broader psychedelic community at the present moment :) Bravo!
3) The resolution “urged” local law enforcement organizations and the San Francisco District Attorney’s Office to make the possession/distribution/etc. of various psychedelics “amongst the lowest law enforcement priority”. Note the emphasis on the word “urged”. So first off, it’s a bill that aims to de-prioritize psychedelics, not decriminalize them. There’s a major difference & I would implore you to update the article to reflect that to prevent the spread of misinformation.
4) There is no legally binding effect to this resolution given that (one) it is a resolution and not an ordinance and (two) there’s no evidence to indicate that the SFDAO or any local LEO has entered into a memorandum of understanding with the SF Board of Directors, Decrim Nature, or Decrim San Francisco regarding the implementation of this resolution.
5) The official Decrim San Francisco Twitter account admitted that local police could still have a “reason to arrest someone” for violations of state law that pertain to psychedelics. Uh-oh. That’s them saying the quiet part out loud. (source: https://twitter.com/SashaSisko/status/1568006774082646016)
6) When asked what specifically is preventing officers from arresting people for the possession/distribution/transportation of psychedelics, the Decrim San Francisco Twitter account responded by stating “the future is an unknown and we are open to listening and learning to create the best possible outcome for those who need access”. In other words, they’re avoiding the topic. (source: https://twitter.com/DecrimSf/status/1568037012250460161?s=20&t=dlIgcFt-4cDfVx_xi6XLSA)
7) When Rabbi Zac explicitly asked Decrim SF why they’re calling it “decrim” despite the fact that it’s effectively a deprioritization proposal, they responded by saying “like all legal contracts, [the resolution is] up for interpretation” meaning that, again, they’re not being transparent.
8) I have sent an email to the San Francisco District Attorney’s Office asking if they are aware of the resolution and if they’re willing to abide by it. If I had to bet good money, they aren’t willing to especially since the resolution in question did not include possession limits. I’ll update my comments when the SFDAO responds.
These are just a few of my thoughts. Since this is an ongoing story, I’ll make sure to come back & comment again :)