cannabisnews.com: Vote Could Mandate Pot Tickets 





Vote Could Mandate Pot Tickets 
Posted by FoM on October 14, 1999 at 06:57:32 PT
Initiative seeks $500 top fine for 2 ounces 
Source: StarNet
Arizona voters likely will be asked to make the penalty for possession of small amounts of marijuana little more than an expensive traffic ticket. 
An initiative effort that kicked off yesterday would make possession of up to 2 ounces of pot punishable by a fine of no more than $500. In fact, police officers could not arrest someone who showed valid identification; they would instead be required to issue citations to appear in court. The measure would make Attorney General Janet Napolitano the state's best-known drug supplier. She would be required to set up a registry of patients who qualify for marijuana for medical purposes and provide them with pot, either from a federal ``compassionate use'' program or from marijuana that has been seized and tested. It also would strip county attorneys and police departments of the money they now get from selling items seized from drug traffickers. Instead, most of that money would go to drug treatment programs. The measure will be on the 2000 general election ballot if backers can get the required 101,762 signatures by July 6. That is not likely to be a problem. The measure is backed financially by the same people who persuaded voters to adopt Arizona's first drug medicalization act in 1996 and a 1998 law blocking legislators from tampering with voter-approved initiatives. Pima County Attorney Barbara LaWall said that although she is troubled by the proposal, the penalties for small-time drug users would be ``sort of how we handle these cases now.'' Police officers and sheriff's deputies are empowered to issue misdemeanor citations in possession cases involving small amounts of marijuana. In fact, she said, many of these cases never come to court at all, with offenders referred to diversion programs that erase the arrest from their records if they complete required treatment. But the proposed initiative fails to differentiate between first-time and repeat offenders, and sends the wrong message, LaWall said. ``There are a lot of young people out there that hesitate and don't use drugs because they know it is a felony,'' she said, adding that society is already ``way too permissive.'' LaWall also said diverting the proceeds from asset seizures will hurt law enforcement. She said cities and counties are either unwilling or unable to provide police with the tools they need. As a result, she said, the agencies depend on other funds. For example, she said, the computer terminals in sheriff's patrol cars are funded through asset seizures, as are improved bulletproof vests for police officers. But Sam Vagenas, director of The People Have Spoken, said it makes more sense to put the money into preventing drug abuse and treating offenders than into arresting more people. In fact, Vagenas said, the entire measure is based on the idea of getting treatment for those in need. The 1996 law specified that first- and second-time drug possessors could not be imprisoned but were required to undergo counseling if convicted. Vagenas said this still clogs up the courts. Worse yet, he said, treatment beds have been filled by people busted for possessing a couple of joints, leaving no space for people with serious addictions. The 1996 measure allows doctors to prescribe otherwise illegal drugs to seriously and terminally ill patients if another doctor consents. But no doctor has so far been willing to go along because of threats by the Drug Enforcement Administration to cancel the prescription-writing privileges of any doctor who writes such an order. Vagenas said the three big backers of this year's effort are the same three who provided nearly $1.3 million of the almost $1.6 million spent on getting the 1996 measure approved: * John Sperling, president of Apollo Group and founder of the University of Phoenix. * George Soros, a New York City investor and longtime proponent of reforming drug laws. * Peter Lewis, an executive with Cleveland-based Progressive Insurance Co. Thursday, 14 October 1999Capitol Media Services  Capitalists for Cannabis - 9/29/99http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/thread3059.shtml
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #1 posted by Alexandre Oeming on October 14, 1999 at 07:15:58 PT:
In yer dreams
>``There are a lot of young people out there that hesitate and don't use drugs because they know it is a felony,'' she said, adding that society is already ``way toopermissive.''Aw, gee, sorry that basic human freedoms to do what one will with one's own body, so long as one harms no one else, are considered "way too permissive". Whose permission do i need here? Am i not a consenting adult of legal age? When i want a babysitter, i'll ask. I haven't yet.Oh, and since making drug use a felony is what keeps those rambunctious (sp?) youngsters away from them, then doing the same for alcohol and tobacco should work admirably as well, right? No? Huh. I wonder why ... i mean, we're talking about two very legal substances that have no medical value and a high potential for abuse. Could our loving technicrats be liars and hypocrites?? You do the math.
[ Post Comment ]

Post Comment


Name: Optional Password: 
E-Mail: 
Subject: 
Comment: [Please refrain from using profanity in your message]
Link URL: 
Link Title: