cannabisnews.com: Reefer Rebellion 





Reefer Rebellion 
Posted by FoM on July 21, 2000 at 05:42:34 PT
By Joe Schoenmann 
Source: Las Vegas Weekly
Nevada currently has the strictest marijuana laws in the U.S. But with a new bill on the table and an initiative on the ballot in November, could Nevada suddenly become pot central? A veteran Las Vegas cop in torn jeans and an old AC/DC T-shirt sits with his red, silver and blue Bud Light at one of the P.T's Pubs a couple weeks back. Just off work, a blackjack dealer next to him loudly collects friends to go outside to "smoke a bowl." 
Barely glancing at them, the cop looks my way, taking another swig. "You think that bothers me, don't you?" he suggests. "I don't know, I suppose." Another swig, a light belch. "Not only don't I care. Even if I caught them on the job, I'd probably let 'em go." My eyebrows go up. The cop holds court for a minute. "If I have a kid, 17 or 18, and I find a joint on them, no way I'm going to arrest them. I'll give them a little spiel, burn the stuff--make sure they see me do it--and send them off," he says. "Because frankly, we don't have the time to arrest them, take them 'downtown' and file a report. That's what it breaks down to, and that's the absolute truth." Nevada's pot laws--the harshest in the country--come in handy, he notes with a tip of his head and a matter-of-fact nod, only when a known "baddie" needs some "twisting." "Maybe you need to twist some guy's arm, that kind of thing," he says. That's rare, too, he continues, because "even the bad guys know you're not going to do anything about it." "Want my opinion?" he says, setting up his finale. "Put the money into prevention and treatment, and that's where they'll save lots of lives." The Joint: Stories like this are driving the efforts of Assemblywoman Chris Giunchigliani, D-Las Vegas, to push a bill through the state Legislature that would decriminalize, or at least de-felonize, minor marijuana use or possession. Enacted 27 years ago, the current law makes it a felony to possess even a single pot seed. Penalties for a first-timer can be fines of up to $5,000 and one to four years in prison. The second time, it's up to 10 years. And if you're caught a third time, think of it this way: three squares a day, conjugal visits for good behavior and drab garb for up to 20 years. Though she's still working out the kinks, Giunchigliani (pronounced june-killy-ah-nee) says her bill would make a first offense a misdemeanor with a fine from between $150 and $500. Offenders would get a ticket, in the same way that a traffic scofflaw is ticketed. Then they would be free to wander away. "The bill removes the whole felony, then has three steps," she explains. "The first, it's a citation and a fine. The second, it's drug court and a fine. The third is another form of rehab with drug court. Fines would be split between the drug court and rehabilitation venues." Here's the kicker: If "Chris G.," as Giunchigliani is known to constituents and colleagues, gets her way, Nevada's Old West, hang-'em-high reputation could be erased overnight, putting us ahead of the curve. Like every other state in the union, pot possession would only be a misdemeanor. But it gets better. Most other states still arrests misdemeanor pot offenders. We'd just ticket them and let them go. Only 11 other states treat pot smokers the same way. According to Allen St. Pierre, National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML) executive director, "Nevada would be put right smack in the middle of those progressive states." "It's a matter of, where do you want to put your resources?" Chris G. explains. "And why do you want to force an entire family, in some situations, into a felony, losing their job, losing their family, losing everything?" The cop back at P.T's put it a little more succinctly. "What, you want to lock someone up for smoking a joint? Come on. We've got more pressing crap to do." Let's Get Smaaaaall: "I'm on drugs. I mean, you know what it is: I love to get small... It's a wild, wild drug; very dangerous for kids, though, because they get (long pause) REALLY small. "I know I shouldn't get small when I'm driving, but, uh, I was driving around the other day, and a cop pulls me over and he goes, 'Hey, are you small?' I said, 'No, I'm tall, I'm tall.' He said, 'I'm going to have to measure you.' He's got a little test. It's a balloon--if you can get inside of it, they know...you're small. And they can't put you in a regular cell, either, because you walk right out." -Steve Martin, Let's Get Small Back in college in Wisconsin, it was party chic to talk about "getting small." And "head shops," where colorful bongs sold for $10, dotted State Street in downtown Madison. Real live hippies still existed, a former Vietnam war protester was mayor and marijuana was a definitive part of the culture. Back then, if police nabbed you for smoking pot, the penalty for a first offense was a $5 citation, less than most traffic tickets. Then Reagan got elected. In short order, he declared the War on Drugs. Police departments became flush with federal money. Your-brain-as-fried-eggs got everyone worked up. And fines and sentences went through the roof. Most states tried to keep a lid on the paranoia, to preventing the sweeping drug terror from overriding sensibility in state law books. Indeed, even today you can visit any other state in the country and light up a joint in front of a cop. Though you may be arrested and convicted, you'll still be able to vote. So what happened here? In his 1985 book, Morals Legislation Without Morality: The Case of Nevada, sociologist John F. Galliher theorized that Nevada's draconian pot laws were an attempt to recapture its moral virginity. This is the state, after all, where more than 30 legal brothels are licensed in rural areas, where its largest city thrives almost exclusively upon the sex-crazed fantasies of conventioneers, and where "gaming" fuels the state economy. Nevada's moral compass was already hopelessly skewed; it couldn't hurt to try to get some of it back by coming down hard on drugs. Galliher dug more deeply, though, and learned that Nevada lawmakers weren't necessarily trying to recapture morality for their own salvation: they were doing it to ward off what appeared to be growing federal sentiments against gambling. Nevada's adherence to strict pot laws were enacted for appearance only. Pot users were Nevada's sacrificial lambs. "A number of people confirmed this," says Galliher, today a professor at the University of Missouri at Columbia. "The political leaders back then were very worried, because every once in a while someone in Congress would raise the issue of legal gambling and reigning in the morality of the Nevada Legislature. So there was a real fear--and who's to say that the fear was groundless at the time?--that the Feds would somehow outlaw gambling." Now some 20 years later, Galliher marvels that Nevada's strict marijuana laws remain in place. No longer is there a moral incentive, he notes, because almost every other state in the country has legalized some form of gambling. There's no longer a need to dress up gambling for the gentry in Congress. "Today, that motivation is absolutely groundless," Galliher says. "I think there's maybe one or two states that don't allow gambling. We've even got river boat gambling down here in Missouri." Thicker Than Weeds:You'd think that with our tough laws, Nevada cops would be arresting people willy-nilly for pot possession. And according to statistics gathered by NORML, 4,715 people were arrested on marijuana charges in 1997, a 60 percent increase from 1995. Of those arrests, 3,878, or 82 percent, were in Clark County. The numbers suggest that our prisons should be chock full of pot-inhaling college kids, off-duty blackjack dealers, professors, even journalists. Right? Not according to the Nevada Department of Prisons. As of last week, prison administrators reported all of two people in its system on marijuana convictions. Two. So what happened to the nearly 4,000 arrestees? While police might be making the arrests--Clark County's rate of arrest per 100,000 people is below the national average--prosecutors don't have the time, inclination or desire to prosecute them as felonies. Stewart Bell, Clark County's district attorney, admitted that "virtually all" cases of possession for relatively small amounts of marijuana are dropped, or negotiated to misdemeanors or counseling. A typical sentence is three years probation, some fines and community service. "We have to put it into perspective," says Bell. "With violent crimes that we have, this kind of thing pales in comparison. And it pales in comparison with people who might be caught with kilos of cocaine. That's a whole different ballgame." Arrestees are also diverted to Drug Court, where they can clear their record by completing a program that uses urine tests and counseling to try to break a cycle of drug use. Kendis Stake, Drug Court manager for the 8th Judicial District, says her court dealt with literally thousands of cases in 1999, a great deal of them for marijuana. Though Stake expresses worries that a new law might diminish the number of customers in her courtroom, drug law gurus say she needn't worry. When other states enacted similar laws, not only did the number of people arrested shoot up, but revenues started to grow. "In Nebraska, which was really a leader in this, the number of arrests skyrocketed," notes Galliher. "That's because now police, who before might not have wanted to ruin a kid's life by arresting them on a felony charge, can just hand out a summons like a parking ticket. And man, they could write up a lot of people." Meanwhile, as revenue from those fines comes in, police and the court system can focus attention on other matters. "In that sense, you could say it's a revenue enhancer," Galliher sums. And what self-respecting, penny-pinching, politician-of-the-people could argue with bottom-line logic like that? Raggio Lightens Up:A couple state legislators clucked last week at the prospect of yet another attempt by Chris G. to get that darned marijuana law passed. It failed in 1999 and it's going to fail again, they predicted. "It's going to go right down party lines," says Assemblywoman Sandra Tiffany, R-Henderson. "It doesn't have a chance." Giunchigliani, though, thinks that this time around she's got an ace up her sleeve. Not only is the Nevada Supreme Court on her side, but by the time the February 2001 legislative session rolls around, will already have likely voted to legalize marijuana use for medical reasons. First, the Supreme Court. Last month, it was reported that a judicial commission of the court will recommend an easing of the state's marijuana laws. The commission is expected to recommend in September that offenders be fined something around $1,000 and receive a maximum six-month jail sentence. Then, in November, voters are expected to approve the creation of a state system of regulating and distributing marijuana for use by seriously ill people. The same measure passed overwhelmingly, 59 to 41 percent, in 1998, but state law require two votes before a ballot initiative becomes law. Chris G. says she is also getting more pledges of support from district attorneys and judges around the state. "They're saying we should do this, that it's long over due." Even Clark County's chief prosecutor can't see a real problem with changing the law. "Honestly, I don't think it will make much of a difference," says Bell. What about Metropolitan Police Department Sheriff Jerry Keller? Though he ripped medical marijuana two years ago as a "complete scam," he's relatively puppy-like on decriminalization. Says Lt. Mark Joseph, department spokesman: "We enforce the laws, we don't make the laws. We'll have to see how it's played out in the Legislature." And how about Oscar Goodman, the mayor of Las Vegas and heir to the governor's mansion? In a rare show of wimpiness, Goodman last week refused to provide his opinion of Chris G.'s bill, closing his eyes, shaking his head wildly, and saying "No, no, no, no!" as a reporter repeatedly asked the question in the cramped space of a City Hall elevator. Though the mayor promised to provide a more rational response later, he did not return repeated calls to his office. The opinions of state lawmakers are mixed. Assemblyman Richard Perkins, who is also a Henderson police captain, likes the idea but knows "there will be concerns about not wanting to come off as though they are soft on crime." Assemblywoman Barbara Buckley, D-Las Vegas, foresees another legislative death: "It's not going to get any further than it did last year. Opponents still see it as being soft on crime." Yeah, OK. But what does someone who really matters say? How about Sen. William Raggio, R-Reno, the Majority Floor Leader and the guiding light by whom so many other legislators blindly follow? The 73-year-old Raggio noted that he is a former prosecutor and not one to look too sympathetically upon those who break the law. As a matter of fact, he has never broken laws regarding the particular drug in question: never smoked a bowl, shared a bong or rolled a joint. "Guess I was born to early," he admits. But while he might not be willing to learn some knew joint rolling tricks, Raggio at least has the guts to say he's willing to listen. "As a former prosecutor, I have not previously supported reducing the penalty," he adds, "but I don't know if we're talking about a small amount of marijuana or not. That might change my opinion, I don't know. But, oh, I think so, I want to leave the door open." Wait a second, what are you saying? "But I don't want to send the wrong message, a message that somehow it's OK to use marijuana," he adds, not quickly, but slowly and deliberately. "But I think I'll defer on this to prosecutors on this. I just don't want to send the wrong message." A New Message:In a few months, we'll all know the fate of Chris G.'s "pot bill." If it fails, as some of her stalwart colleagues predict, there may be solution: Simply enforce the current law. Start arresting all those doctors, professors, journalists, politicians, lawyers and yes, even cops and prison guards, who use the drug recreationally to unwind from the rigors of life in this scalding, overcrowded desert hellhole. Do that, then see the eyes open, listen to the cries of injustice and watch as the law quickly changes. As UNR political science professor and ACLU of Nevada board president Richard Siegel points out, an awful lot of people don't need the stricter enforcement to know the current law is as used up as a dead roach. "People are saying they aren't particularly concerned with marijuana, and the babyboomers are the majority of those people," he figures. "They grew up with marijuana and, though they may not want their kids to smoke it, they don't see this as a criminal offense." By Joe SchoenmannE-Mail: schoenmann vegas.comDirect Link To The Complete Article: http://www.lasvegasweekly.com/features/reefer_rebellion.htmlFrom the July 20, 2000 Edition Updated: Thursday, July 20, 2000 Copyright 1998 - 2000 Radiant City Publications, LLCRelated Articles:Panel To Call For Easing of Marijuana Penaltieshttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread6135.shtmlPanel Calls for Softer Laws on Pot Possessionhttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread6126.shtml 
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #2 posted by observer on July 22, 2000 at 14:32:48 PT
Pot users: ``sacrificial lambs''
This is an interesting piece. I've heard the drug user described (variously) as a sublimated "enemy within", "evil other", "Christ", and "Jew" (Richard Miller, The Case For Legalizing Drugs, 1991, pgs.109-122 http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0275934594/Cannabisnews/ ). I've never seen the process of hurting cannabis users so linked to the desire for expiaton of sins like whoredom, though. Amazing.So what happened here? In his 1985 book, Morals Legislation Without Morality: The Case of Nevada, sociologist John F. Galliher theorized that Nevada's draconian pot laws were an attempt to recapture its moral virginity. This is the state, after all, where more than 30 legal brothels are licensed in rural areas, where its largest city thrives almost exclusively upon the sex-crazed fantasies of conventioneers, and where "gaming" fuels the state economy. Nevada's moral compass was already hopelessly skewed; it couldn't hurt to try to get some of it back by coming down hard on drugs. Galliher dug more deeply, though, and learned that Nevada lawmakers weren't necessarily trying to recapture morality for their own salvation [To the contrary, I believe this plays a huge part in many people's thinking about cannabis laws. -obs.]: they were doing it to ward off what appeared to be growing federal sentiments against gambling. Nevada's adherence to strict pot laws were enacted for appearance only. Pot users were Nevada's sacrificial lambs. People who use cannabis are prohibitionists' sacrificial lambs in general. Especially in the U.S.: sacrificing people who use cannabis is an easy and tried way for grandstanding politicos to look tough. 
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #1 posted by kaptinemo on July 21, 2000 at 10:39:31 PT:
The 'Wrong People' 
'In a few months, we'll all know the fate of Chris G.'s "pot bill." If it fails, as some of her stalwart colleagues predict, there may be solution: Simply enforce the currentlaw. Start arresting all those doctors, professors, journalists, politicians, lawyers and yes, even cops and prison guards, who use the drug recreationally to unwindfrom the rigors of life in this scalding, overcrowded desert hellhole. Do that, then see the eyes open, listen to the cries of injustice and watch as the law quicklychanges.' Because then all of the 'wrong people' will be experiencing everything that only the 'right people' used to.What am I talking about? Simply this: the drug laws are racist. They were aimed largely at Blacks, Hispanics, and Asians. We know that. The laws focused solely upon the economic underclass, designed to allow police harrassment based upon a cover of legality rather than blatant Jim Crowe oppression. Again, we know all that. These are the people that these laws are meant to harm: the 'right people'. But now, the professional class is finding out that the same laws meant to harm others are harming *themselves*. And more importantly, *their children*.The wheel turns once more; the same thing happened in the 70's. Parents were shocked at the Draconian penalties levied against their little Johnnie and Suzy when they were caught with the stuff. These are the 'wrong people' who were getting hurt. So many legislatures reduced the penalties to something (only just slightly) saner. But this was considered too 'weak' and 'namby-pamby' by the (then rising) Rabid Religious Right, who saw the Devil behind every attempt to 'liberalize' drug laws. Just as their ideological predecessors, the missionaries who beat the drum for the Harrison Narcotics Act in 1914, they sought to increase the penalties. And got their way. And we are left to clean up the damage caused by their zeal.And now, we are back at square one, come full circle and found we got nowhere fast. Will the 'wrong people' get the message this time and act appropriately? As the article states, things can only get worse. But I do believe they will get better...after more of the 'wrong people' have their lives ruined.
[ Post Comment ]

Post Comment


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