How Illegal was That?

Memorial Glade, April 20th, 2013

   
Yesterday was April 20th. For the squares around who don’t know, this is 420 (the smoker’s holiday where all who partake enjoy a joint in celebration of well … smoking weed). Ironically, this celebration sprung from a twist on the law. The code ‘4-20’ is the police radio signal code for marijuana related crimes in progress, (whether or not they still use it I do not know). Here in Berkeley, California, the celebration is not made of isolated groups in apartments, giggling quietly to themselves; quite the opposite. Memorial Glade is a large grass field in the center of campus bordered by two libraries and a laboratory. Yesterday it was taken over by a crowd of several hundred - all of whom lit up when the clock struck 4:20pm. This happens every single year. Looking over the crowd I noticed two things: first, the sheer number of people breaking federal law, and the lack of police action despite utterly surrounding the Glade. What does that say about the nature of law, and more specifically, of laws pertaining to pot? A law is just a series of words printed on a piece of paper that the populace agrees is how they should act. But what if no one took a rule seriously? How legitimate and real can a law be if no one follows it?

Under California law a person found in possession of an ounce or less of marijuana is subject to a maximum fine of one hundred dollars plus fees making the grand total as high as four hundred and eighty five dollars in absence of a criminal record (according to Health & Safety code 11357b). Any amount larger than an ounce is subject to a maximum fine of five hundred dollars and six months in jail under Health & Safety code 11361.7 however, they can request a treatment program in place of jail time. Looking at these two laws, one would not call them the harshest in the land, as each has a ‘maximum’ fine and deferment of jail time simply by requesting to complete a treatment program, both of which are clear protections for the offender. Ultimately it is not the laws that I want to focus on, it is the fact that the law enforcement officers chose to not shut the gathering down, a possibility that many participants were afraid of.

The fact that the students were aware of the likelihood of a shut down, and were hoping that it would not happen proves two things. First, they knew they were breaking the law, second, they would ‘follow’ the law if an officer approached them. Few would argue that to be reminded of the law would be an infringement on their fundamental rights as a human, most would just consider the harmless and enjoyable nature of the substance and simply ask “why not?” Although the law appears to protect the smoker more than punish him, it would seem that this situation was set up perfectly for the cops to come and break up the gathering. And yet they didn’t.

The police had a decision to make and I think they made the right one. But what led them to make this decision? Did they feel that it didn’t matter if they were to break it up as it would continue elsewhere? I don’t think so. The idea that an officer would allow the breaking of a law because ‘it is inevitable’ is a chilling idea - and hopefully a false one. Was it that they did not have the resources and manpower to handle a large group of giggling students? Also unlikely. According to the UCPD website the organization has “64 officers, 45 full-time civilian personnel, and 60 student employees” whom all operate “24 hours a day, seven days a week”. With these kinds of numbers it paints a picture of a sizable and fully capable force that could handle even the craziest group of stoners. I am reminded of a few strategically placed baton swings during a protest last fall to a group of ‘vicious” arm-linked students. So if they should have (and could have) broken the 420 celebration up but didn’t, does the nature of the laws being broken play a key factor in the decision? This seems to be the most probable scenario. Most like to think that the law is black and white; that one is either breaking the law or following it and it is a clear distinction. If this were the case there would be no lawyers. In the flawed world designed by man, there are laws the general public consider to be the best way of operating - but sometimes there are ‘extraordinary circumstances’ that require someone to break the law for the greater good of their situation or another’s. This context, which surrounds every situation, is an important part to every factor of law. If man A shoots and kills man B, that is bad. If man B is shot and killed after he has broken into the house and killed the family of man A, that is acceptable. The facts are the same; one man is dead by the other man’s hand, yet it is the context that makes all the difference.

In our current situation, the context is made of two pieces, the actual laws being broken and the consequences of allowing it to be so. With the state law already being fairly lenient and the national attitude towards pot being as relaxed as it has ever been, the idea of letting this law become a ‘gray zone’ is understandable. Just like money, a law, a religion, and a government, their power is derived from the belief of the people in the strength and importance of the institution. Gold is just a shiny metal that people consider worth something. Jesus Christ could have been written off as a crazy person hearing voices and claiming he was the son of god - yet when he had thousands of followers he was taken quite seriously. The American public does not take this law seriously and there is little push back from the other side of the public who oppose its use and legalization (40% against the 56% in support) and by extension those who “serve and protect” are within the majority sphere of considering pot to be not that big of a deal.

At the other side of this situation is what happens if they DO let this law slide in the glade. Before the 20th some of the administrators were asked if they were concerned that UC Berkeley was holding its annual ‘Cal Day’ on the smoker’s holiday. Cal Day allows prospective students come see the school and make their decision on where they will spend the next four years of their life, and perhaps more importantly to the higher ups, their money. Allowing this gathering to happen could act as a detriment to the process, and set Berkeley in a negative light to onlookers – who may be hesitant to align themselves with such an establishment. Though I had the complete opposite experience with over 20 perspective students, I understood this concern. Lieutenant Eric Tejada of the UCPD was quoted on the 18th saying “We will address any marijuana-related activity as appropriate” and did so with a welcomed lightness. Even though the stakes were seemingly higher than a usual 420 holiday the enforcement still chose to turn a blind, bloodshot eye.

This was not a revolutionary experience or a groundbreaking event that will change the world, indeed these gatherings happen often in Seattle, my hometown, and even Berkeley has held Cal Day on 420 before in 2002. But what if it was? What if the group was asking for something? What if the masses suddenly broke out signs and began chanting demands of the administration or the government? Was it that all of the students were just relaxing and enjoying themselves? What matters when a group is breaking the law, and what is the tipping point for the requirement of police force? Clearly it is not simply the aspect of law breaking - or this would have been stopped in its tracks. It is the severity of how the law is being broken; it is the context that surrounds the situation that the police take into consideration when they are deciding whether or not to enforce it. Murder, domestic violence, theft, all these laws and situations have the possibility of real damage taking place, however, a large group of smokers just … doesn’t.

This is precisely the issue that is irksome. If it is a protest, how quickly would police respond to the situation? Very quickly, I think. It shows what is important to the ones in charge. As long as the people, who are more numerous and more powerful, don’t ask for anything more than the administrators are willing to give, there will be not police response. The second the people ask for more rights, or more taxes, or more benefits, it becomes an unruly situation that requires pepper spray and nightsticks. I would prescribe them some medicine … but I don’t know how many have a green card.

#FitzFile