cannabisnews.com: Daley: Just Ticket Marijuana Users 










  Daley: Just Ticket Marijuana Users 

Posted by CN Staff on September 21, 2004 at 11:53:41 PT
By Fran Spielman, City Hall Reporter  
Source: Chicago Sun-Times  

Mayor Daley today embraced a Wentworth District police sergeant’s idea to ticket people caught with small amounts of marijuana, rather than file criminal charges and take up the time of police officers only to end up seeing the charges thrown out in court, as often happens.Daley said it makes little sense to keep piling up arrests for marijuana use when “99 percent” of the cases are dismissed. The mayor said judges appear to have so little regard for the cases that many defendants don’t even bother showing up in court.
“If 99 percent of the cases are all thrown out, and you have a police officer going — why?” Daley said. “Why do we arrest the individual, seize the marijuana, [go] to court and they're all thrown out? . . . It costs you a lot of money for that. It costs you a lot of money for police officers to go to court.“Why is that happening? They say, ‘Well, we didn’t like the search. We didn’t like the arrest.’ It’s the same person we’re arresting every week. He has marijuana on him. And if you want to test him, he has marijuana in his system . . . If 99 percent of the cases are thrown out, when is [there] a credible arrest for marijuana? What does the court want us to do with these individuals?" Still, Daley denied that the idea is tantamount to decriminalizing marijuana use in Chicago.“It’s decriminalized now,” the mayor said. “They throw all the cases out. It doesn’t mean anything. You just show up to court. Another case goes out. That’s all it is. There’s nothing there. They don’t even show up — the offenders. It doesn’t mean anything.“Sometimes, a fine is worse than being thrown out of court. Thrown out of court means nothing. Maybe they don’t even have to show up. Many times, the offenders don’t even show up anyways. That’s what we have to look at.”Fraternal Order of Police President Mark Donahue acknowledged that far too many cases involving “small amounts” of marijuana use are “pitched at the initial court hearing.” Still, Donahue said that’s no reason for the city to “throw in the towel” on making arrests altogether.Members of the police union stand to lose thousands of dollars in overtime pay if the city starts ticketing, instead of jailing, marijuana users.“It’s an issue of moral or societal acceptance whether to do that,” Donahue said of the ticketing proposal. “Are we lessening the offense? It may appear to be so by ticketing instead of making physical arrests. It could be sending an improper message to society that we’re not taking these offenses as seriously as we have in the past.”The Chicago Sun-Times reported earlier this week that Wentworth Sgt. Tom Donegan is pushing the plan to ticket people caught with small amounts of marijuana — anywhere from $250 for 10 grams of pot to $1,000 for 20 to 30 grams — because he got fed up with making arrests in such cases, only to see judges dismiss the charges.Donegan estimated the financially strapped city budget could have taken in $5 million in fines in 2003 alone by ticketing marijuana users. That’s based on court records he obtained that showed charges were dropped in 2003 in: 94 percent of the 6,954 marijuana cases involving less than 2.5 grams; 81 percent of the 6,945 cases involving 2.5 to 10 grams; and 52 percent of the 1,261 cases involving 10 to 30 grams.Donegan said he drew his inspiration from the DuPage County suburb of Darien, where police have the option of writing tickets for marijuana possession under 30 grams or arresting the suspect on a misdemeanor state charge. Darien’s marijuana-possession fines range from $75 to $500. The cases are processed at a traffic court in nearby Downers Grove to avoid overwhelming the Wheaton County courthouse.Source: Chicago Sun-Times (IL)Author:  Fran Spielman, City Hall Reporter Published: September 21, 2004Copyright: 2004 The Sun-Times Co.Contact: letters suntimes.comWebsite: http://www.suntimes.com/Related Articles:Some Marijuana Arrests May Mean Just a Tickethttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread19521.shtmlCop Wants To Fine -- Not Jail -- Potheads http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread19516.shtml 

Home    Comment    Email    Register    Recent Comments    Help





Comment #17 posted by Overwhelmsam on September 24, 2004 at 19:19:16 PT
That's probably a good idea, 
but I think the DPA is already supporting these types of initiatives across several venues. I do write my Congressman, but I fear my letters just get lost in the shuffle.You see, I'm just not so sure the administration and the Drug Czar are totally at fault here. Their mandate is to enforce the laws passed by Congress. Even the judicial branch dismisses cases left and right. It's Congress alone that has to be dealt with, and until we figure out how to crack these nuts, it just doesn't seem like we'll ever get anywhere. Just a thought, if it's wrong because it's against the law, how come we don't have drunk driving Czars, speeding Czars and jay walking Czars? Makes you wonder.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #16 posted by FoM on September 22, 2004 at 11:29:45 PT
Overwhelmsam
I thought about your question and came up with an idea. How about e-mailing the Drug Policy Alliance and see what they think. That might help. Just a thought.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #15 posted by FoM on September 22, 2004 at 10:41:12 PT
Overwhelmsam
I wanted to answer you but I don't have an answer. I think if someone wants to push an issue they should write and make their voice heard. For me it is just too much to do these days.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #14 posted by E_Johnson on September 22, 2004 at 07:59:48 PT
Something I heard last night
I know someone who is a real estate developer and has been sued a lot and he told me that most judges are reasonable people. You can count on most of them to listen to and understand logic.A prosecutor is not paid to be reasonable, a prosecutor seems to earn his or her money by acting like a ferocious attack dog going for the jugular vein of each defendant.Maybe thirty years of watching government attack dogs lunge after powerless potheads is getting to these judges. It just doesn't seem reasonable.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #13 posted by siege on September 22, 2004 at 07:04:16 PT
           mandatory
 mandatory minimi this is why representative, senate are trying to put in place mandatory minimi's and saying the judges have [ RUN AMUCK ] so they keep geting there kick backs so we see who the real drug prohibition problems are. not the black robes, it's the Govt.    
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #12 posted by Overwhelmsam on September 22, 2004 at 05:45:50 PT
Souder
I'm really concerned about this representative, and I think the major reform organizations should run or support somebody, anybody, against him. We've got to show the representatives in Congress that if you legislate against an entire class of people in the US, you get fired. What do you think FoM?
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #11 posted by kaptinemo on September 22, 2004 at 05:00:49 PT:
The Revolt of the Black Robes
is mainstreaming.So, judges are getting tired of their courts being clogged with pointless (and picayune) cannabis busts? They're throwing out cases left and right? Think of it as a political statement being made under the flag of no party.And as to the Sun-Times pointing out that the police would lose money from overtime normally spent on cannabis busts...friends, think back. Think of all the articles you've read here, posted from newspapers throughout the US of A. Can you recall a single instance of this happening before? That a newspaper fearlessly points out the screamingly obvious fact police have a 'vested interest' in ruining our lives - a move which will not endear the CS-T's reporters to their 'sources', the police.This is a major development. A tectonic shift of sorts. Up until now, most news sources have tread on tippy-toes around the fact that police *like* busting us, to avoid infuriating their 'sources' and being cut off by them from any leaks or tips of upcoming busts. Cops like busting us, not just because we (generally) don't shoot back, but because it's an easy 'collar' that nets them more money than they would otherwise receive for doing their job. To mention this has been (gasp!) heresy. But now it's been said. In a major US newspaper. You can expect lesser ones to follow suit.And let us not forget: this whole matter has been instigated by a *cop*, a soldier in the trenches who's sick of engaging in a losing war. I don't ascribe any motivations beyond simple self-preservation to him, as he clearly is scheming to maintain his own stake in the game at our continued expense. But the very fact he has done so points out the inescapable fact the DrugWar is inherently unwinnable. And the troops in the trenches up to the field grade officers and some generals know it.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #10 posted by FoM on September 21, 2004 at 19:33:37 PT
military officer guy 
Please no more pushing of a political issue. You must have missed what I said last night. It's not an issue for CNews. Thank you.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #8 posted by Dankhank on September 21, 2004 at 19:11:42 PT

Marinol
Everyone should try to get a perscription for Marinol if Souder's crap passes.It should be the perfect shield to DUID for THC
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #7 posted by ekim on September 21, 2004 at 18:44:24 PT

Souder got it in Trans bill last week 
http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/thread19148.shtml 
U.S. Drivers Beware: Souder is Legislating 
Posted by CN Staff on July 07, 2004 at 14:38:59 PT
By Paul Armentano 
Source: News-Sentinel Imagine if it was against the law to drive home after consuming one glass of wine at dinner. Now imagine it was against the law to do so after having a glass of wine two weeks ago.
Sound absurd? No more so than proposed legislation by U.S. Rep. Mark Souder mandating that each state enact laws sanctioning anyone who operates a motor vehicle "while any detectable amount of a controlled substance is present in the person’s body, as measured in the person’s blood, urine, saliva, or other bodily substance." The expressed purpose of this legislation, H.R. 3922: the “Drug Impaired Driving Enforcement Act of 2004,” is to remove drug-impaired drivers from our roadways, but in reality, this proposal would do little to improve safety. Rather it would falsely categorize sober drivers as “intoxicated” simply if they had consumed an illicit substance, particularly marijuana, days or weeks earlier.Souder’s proposal, recently added to the House transportation reauthorization bill, presumes individuals guilty of driving while intoxicated if even trace levels of a controlled substance or even drug metabolites (inactive compounds indicative of past drug use) are found in bodily fluids, even if the individual is neither under the influence nor impaired to drive. Marijuana metabolites are often detectable in urine for days or weeks after the drug is consumed. Imagine if we prosecuted recreational drinkers similarly. This unfunded federal mandate from Congress is unnecessary. All states already have DUID (driving under the influence of drugs) statutes on the books. Most focus on the totality of circumstances – most importantly, whether the motorist is physically or mentally impaired – and rightly punishes those who drive under the influence of illicit drugs.There is no need for additional legislation, especially from the federal government. While drug-impaired driving is obviously a serious issue, Souder’s proposal neither addresses the problem nor offers a legitimate solution. “Zero tolerance” laws are neither a safe nor sensible way to identify impaired drivers; they are an attempt to misuse the traffic safety laws in order to identify and prosecute recreational drug users per se.Furthermore, identifying and sanctioning impaired drivers should be solely a state issue, and not a Congressional concern. At a minimum, state laws targeting drug drivers should identify “parent drugs” (i.e., cocaine or THC) the psychoactive component in marijuana), not simply inert drug metabolites.These laws must have scientifically sound cut-off levels that correlate drug concentration to impairment of performance, similar to the 0.08 BAC standard for drunk driving. There must also be assurances that the laws require drug testing be performed and confirmed by accredited state labs using uniform procedures and standards. Such measures, if enacted by states, would be reasonable alternatives to "zero tolerance" drugged-driving legislation. Meanwhile, Congress should butt out of the issue altogether.Paul Armentano is the senior policy analyst for the NORML Foundation in Washington, D.C. Newshawk: Paul Armentano
Source: News-Sentinel, The (Fort Wayne, IN)
Author: Paul Armentano
Published: Tuesday, July 6, 2004
Copyright: 2004 The News-Sentinel
Contact: nsletters news-sentinel.com
Website: http://www.fortwayne.com/mld/newssentinel/
 

http://www.leap.cc/events
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #6 posted by mayan on September 21, 2004 at 18:19:14 PT

John Tyler...
I imagine that's why the cops are leaning towards tickets. The judges can't dismiss the tickets as they can arrest charges. Most judges are fed up with the bogus war on cannabis and the cops know it. The cops are just trying to preserve their sacred cash cow and will now waste their time writing even more tickets. The way out is the way in...The Pentagon Renovations Completed on 9/11/01:
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/911_pentagon_renovations.htmlText of Michael Ruppert's Speech at the Commonwealth Club: 
http://www.indybay.org/news/2004/09/1694003.php9/11 Truth:
http://www.911truth.org/	
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #5 posted by Max Flowers on September 21, 2004 at 18:12:16 PT

JR it's wet weight
I'll bet they weighed it right after hacking it down. 80% of it was water weight. Sneaky bastards aren't they? A large outdoor plant could easily weight that much while wet. I've heard stories of harvests of huge outdoor monsters of close to 10 lbs (dry and manicured, that is), but 15 lbs is hard to swallow.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #4 posted by John Tyler on September 21, 2004 at 17:41:50 PT

cases thrown out
If the judges just throw the cases out all of the time, why are the cops bothering to arrest people holding small amounts of cannabis anyway? It seems like a waste of everyone's time and money. Might the judges be trying to send that message to the cops?
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #3 posted by FoM on September 21, 2004 at 17:15:50 PT

Heads Up: Bill Maher on Scarborough Country
I know many people here like Bill Maher and I just saw he would be on tonight at 10 and I wanted to pass it on. 
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #2 posted by JR Bob Dobbs on September 21, 2004 at 16:50:57 PT

In other news
Our local paper today ran a story in the police blotter about a couple who were arrested for growing one large plant in their yard. The thing that stretches credulity, though, is that the police say the plant weighed FIFTEEN POUNDS. I mean, even with stems and seeds and all that, there can't possibly be fifteen pounds of raw plant matter. By the way, does anyone know of an email address or anything for Montel Williams? I went to www.montelshow.com and the only way I could find to email Montel seemed to be something you had to join. I just wanted to tell him "Thank you! Thank you! Thank you so very, very much!" after seeing the show today... well, that and "Encore!"
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #1 posted by Sam Adams on September 21, 2004 at 14:03:09 PT

Good cops
Wow, the cops in my state would NEVER give up even 1 hour of overtime pay to decriminalize. They must have at least a few good ones in Chicago.
[ Post Comment ]





  Post Comment