cannabisnews.com: Reduce Penalty for Pot? Time To Just Say No Reduce Penalty for Pot? Time To Just Say No Posted by FoM on February 20, 2001 at 06:42:09 PT Editorial Source: Bucks County Courier Times Our view: Tullytown council must vote down an ordinance that would allow cops to effectively reduce the penalty for possession of marijuana. Tullytown police say that giving them discretion to effectively reduce the penalty for possession of marijuana is a crime-fighting tool. Bucks County District Attorney Diane Gibbons says that adoption of such an ordinance might allow someone's first drug offense to go undetected on subsequent offenses. Nonetheless, the council will consider adopting a disorderly practices ordinance that would allow police to issue a nontraffic citation to suspects holding a small amount of marijuana. This should go down as the easiest vote in borough history, a unanimous thumbs down. Law enforcement officials have long complained that all too often drug offenders receive light sentences and are back on the street seemingly before the ink is dry on the arrest report. Now Tullytown apparently wants to add to the problem. Tullytown police Chief Patrick Priore said the ordinance would be "geared toward kids. It gives them a chance to go straight." While we're at it, let's give kids a traffic ticket the first time they steal a car or rob a house. What about the first time they shoot someone? Shouldn't we give these kids a chance to get straight, too? And aren't those tens of thousands of dollars spent on programs such as DARE (Drug Abuse Resistance Education) supposed to give kids a chance to go straight? After pounding into our kids' heads that drugs are dangerous and just possessing them a serious crime? How are kids supposed to reconcile that message with police issuing what amounts to a traffic ticket for possession of marijuana? Trying to call the ordinance a crime-fighting tool borders on ludicrous. Lowering the penalty for committing a crime hardly seems the most effective method for convincing people it's not worth committing the crime. The ordinance will not make Tullytown a haven for pot peddlers, but will leave a lasting impression. In a time when drugs are eroding the very fabric of our country, Tullytown wants to handle some drug offenders with kid gloves. And, of course, Gibbons is right. The ordinance would complicate countywide drug enforcement efforts by making it more difficult to identify repeat offenders. The council must do the right thing and squash the ordinance. There is nothing to be gained and far too much to lose. We encourage concerned citizens to call borough hall: 215-945-1560. Source: Bucks County Courier Times (PA) Published: Monday, February 20, 2001Copyright: 2001 Calkins Newspapers. Inc. Address: 8400 Route 13, Levittown, PA Feedback: http://www.phillyburbs.com/feedback/content_cti.shtml Website: http://www.phillyburbs.com/couriertimes/index.shtml Related Articles:Tullytown Council Weighs Reducing Pot Penalty http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread8724.shtmlWhich States Have Decriminalized MJ Possession?http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread8678.shtmlCannabisNews - Cannabis Archiveshttp://cannabisnews.com/news/list/cannabis.shtml Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help Comment #11 posted by aocp on February 20, 2001 at 17:09:03 PT: Back to those poor kids While we're at it, let's give kids a traffic ticket the first time they steal a car or rob a house.I love how they went right to the children. Beyond that emotional kneejerk, stealing a car for anyone should be a prosecutable offense as there is a definite victim. Same for robbing a house. Actually, i think i know why they dove for the cover beneath the 5-year-olds (freaking cowards). They know that trying to attack this idea when it applies to consenting adults sounds and is ludicrous. Three card monte, anyone?What about the first time they shoot someone?I've got a great cardboard sign that reads, "Will prosecute for crime with victim." Sound good to you?Shouldn't we give these kids a chance to get straight, too?Not the same game, ballpark nor sport, i'm afraid. This would be gut-bustingly funny if such rhetoric didn't ruin so many lives needlessly. [ Post Comment ] Comment #10 posted by observer on February 20, 2001 at 14:49:20 PT Hail to this Chief What a decent police Chief! Chief Patrick Priore is to be thanked for having the backbone to say what needs to be said. Too bad the local paper is stuck in Reefermadnessville.Our view: Tullytown council must vote down an ordinance that would allow cops to effectively reduce the penalty for possession of marijuana. Major prohibitionist themes in this piece:7. Policy options are presented as total prohibition or total access. 8. Anyone questioning any of the above assumptions is bitterly attacked and characterized as part of the problem that needs to be eliminated.Theme # 7 - ``Prohibitionists have always characterized themselves as being in a moral/religious battle against evil. This quality of the prohibitionist movements eliminated the option of compromise. The choice as they saw and presented it was total prohibition or total access to the hated drugs. It was not that other methods of controlling use did not exist or would not work; it was the idea that all usage was sinful and must be stopped. Like an ongoing morality play, this same issue gets played out-repeatedly today with a new cast of characters. As bills are introduced to lower criminal penalties for various illicit drugs, one can anticipate any number of legislators standing to attack reduced penalties as an invitation for use and a first step toward legalization of drug X.''Themes in Chemical Prohibition, NIDA, 1979 http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/History/ticp.html [ Post Comment ] Comment #9 posted by cy aaron on February 20, 2001 at 14:01:53 PT marijuana is not a crime It sounds to me like the author of this article needs to go smoke a joint and see how "bad" marijuana really is. So many myths about this herb could be put to rest if the anti-hemp members of society would just try it out. How can you truly argue against it if you really don't know what it does? Sadly, using marijuana can have dire effects on oneself. Of course, none of these are health ailments, but instead the result of criminal prosecution. Oh yes, this "drug" can ruin your life, thanks to the "democratic" government of the United States. For many, a marijuana conviction requires low income students to drop out of college due to the manditory loss of financial aid. That is a great idea!!! Take there chance of making something of themselves away!! What a great f#cking country. One could rape and rob and still be eligible for financial aid. Our country sucks. The herb culture has little voice in politics and probably never will have a big one. Maybe we should all do something. There are 40 million people (or criminals by gov't standards) who have tried this herb. If only we could join together............... [ Post Comment ] Comment #8 posted by CannabisMythsExposed on February 20, 2001 at 13:24:32 PT: Is this Tullytown or Bully Town? What a backwards place.Latest news from England: Cannabis Myths Exposed [ Post Comment ] Comment #7 posted by Kevin Hebert on February 20, 2001 at 11:30:31 PT: What a ridiculous Article "Law enforcement officials have long complained that all too often drug offenders receive light sentences and are back on the street seemingly before the ink is dry on the arrest report. Now Tullytown apparently wants to add to the problem."Huh? What about mandatory minumum sentences? What about the fact that drug crimes make up the highest percentage of all criminal violations? It is ridiculous to put people in prison for things they do that harm no one but themselves.It is ridiculous that any media outlet would allow such garbage to be printed.It is certainly shameful that the writer did not have the courage to accept responsiblity for this trash. [ Post Comment ] Comment #6 posted by kaptinemo on February 20, 2001 at 10:41:52 PT The dangers of assuming a quorum. It never ceases to amaze me. The antis are always assuming things. They are especially guilty of assuming that their target audience a priori believes that only the antis have anything worth saying...and therefore can only agree with them.'This should go down as the easiest vote in borough history, a unanimous thumbs down.'Assumption: that there are no rational opposing voices who would be raised to debate the measure. But, why then, is it being proposed at all?. For the same reason such measures as these are always brought up: thoughtful people have looked over the mess that the antis have made, and want to change things for the better.'While we're at it, let's give kids a traffic ticket the first time they steal a car or rob a house. What about the first time they shoot someone? Shouldn't we give these kids a chance to get straight, too?'Assumption: all acts of a criminal nature are equally destructive. Typical anti conflation designed to obfuscate the issue. The issue being of course whether someone who is in possession of a relatively benign substance - as opposed to alcohol - should be punished as severly as someone who commits, say, murder. 'The ordinance will not make Tullytown a haven for pot peddlers, but will leave a lasting impression. In a time when drugs are eroding the very fabric of our country, Tullytown wants to handle some drug offenders with kid gloves.'Ah, a partial nod to the truth...to be quickly followed by a whopper of a lie. Which is more corrosive to society: the drugs themselves, or the laws which promote the economic activity which spurs crime and endangers the public? But finally, we have this:'And, of course (emphasis mine), Gibbons is right. The ordinance would complicate countywide drug enforcement efforts by making it more difficult to identify repeat offenders.'Pray tell, why 'of course'? Doesn't that go back to my original assertion that the antis are assuming they are always correct, and thusly believe a riposte is pointless?This is why we're winning: we can concede when we're wrong; to do so is to demonstrate genuine open-mindedness. The antis simply cannot. In their eyes, any such admission devaluates their entire position, so no aspect of it may be called into question...including their mistaken belief that their propaganda is held inviolable by all.That's why when I hear an anti say "we", I look to see if there are any mice in their suit pockets. [ Post Comment ] Comment #5 posted by legalizeit on February 20, 2001 at 08:03:45 PT Pound this, venerable drug warriors! > After pounding into our kids' heads that drugs are dangerous and just possessing them a serious crime? How are kids supposed to reconcile that message with police issuing what amounts to a traffic ticket for possession of marijuana?It should be obvious! These kids who have tried pot realize that there is a grand dose of hypocricy in criminalizing the possession or use of a benign, natural substance.>In a time when drugs are eroding the very fabric of our country, Tullytown wants to handle some drug offenders with kid gloves. The usual crap... blame the drugs for the problems caused by prohibition. Of course these idgits never seem to realize that people used these substances for a long time before they were criminalized with no damage to the country's "fabric." The drug-related problems now existent in our country, from gang activity to smuggling to corrupted and disrespected law enforcement to desperate heroin addicts unwilling to seek treatment for fear of criminal retribution, are direct effects of prohibition.>Lowering the penalty for committing a crime hardly seems the most effective method for convincing people it's not worth committing the crime. This cumbersome passage sounds worded at about the fifth or sixth grade level. At least they are displaying their level of intelligence for all to see.The fact that they spew the same old stuff, over and over again, shows that they have little imagination or intelligence and must resort to pounding on a worn-out drum to try and scare people into believing that continued prohibition is necessary and will eventually result in a happy, drug-free society where the only drugs that exist are the ones Uncle Sam wants to exist.I wish these parroters of gloom and doom, cookie-cutter rhetoric would create their own "drug-free" commune, go live there, and leave the rest of us alone!As Duzt pointed out... these people can't even tell us who they are - maybe they're too embarrassed that anyone would know they wrote it! [ Post Comment ] Comment #4 posted by jimbojones on February 20, 2001 at 08:02:19 PT: What? F*ck this guy, some of us like drugs. So deal with it.Why do so many insist on infringing upon our personal choices, inflicting their moral ideology on up. Is this a free society? http://bongsrus.dea.com [ Post Comment ] Comment #3 posted by dddd on February 20, 2001 at 07:30:44 PT right on Well said Duzt..... [ Post Comment ] Comment #2 posted by Duzt on February 20, 2001 at 07:25:41 PT Huge difference While we're at it, let's give kids a traffic ticket the first time they steal a car or rob a house. What about the first time they shoot someone? Shouldn't we give these kids a chance to get straight, too? Why are these people so blind? There is a huge difference here, an obvious difference. Stealing is a crime, it affects another person, shooting someone as well. Smoking a joint only affects me, these people have no arguement. Of course, like usual, this person stands so firmly behind their beliefs that they can't put their name to it, God forbid they have to debate their side. Just another faceless, and meaningless "editorial". These are the same types of people who so staunchly supported slavery, and, like slavery, these people will be looked back on as mindless cowards who have no true meaning in their own lives, thus have chosen "drugs" as their cause, even thought they know nothing about them. [ Post Comment ] Comment #1 posted by arrow on February 20, 2001 at 06:59:42 PT I might be strait DARE does not work. and yes we should give everbody under the age of 18 a second chance. That is why we have a difference between a child and an adult. I child does not have the option to legally drown their fears in alcohol, cannot vote to change the laws go that they are being charged with, and are emotionally unready for the legal wrangeling that comes with those laws. Damnit!! for onec do something for the childeren. [ Post Comment ] Post Comment Name: Optional Password: E-Mail: Subject: Comment: [Please refrain from using profanity in your message] Link URL: Link Title: