cannabisnews.com: Bill Would Reduce Marijuana Court Costs





Bill Would Reduce Marijuana Court Costs
Posted by FoM on June 03, 2001 at 07:17:20 PT
By Brian Seals, Sentinel Staff Writer
Source: Santa Cruz County Sentinel 
Pot smokers who get caught by the law with less than an ounce of marijuana would no longer be charged with a misdemeanor crime under a bill that could come to a vote as early as MondayUnder the provisions of the measure sponsored by state Sen. Bruce McPherson, possessing less than 28.5 grams of pot would be an "infraction," rather than a misdemeanor. The maximum $100 fine would remain the same. 
However, far from attempting to scale down marijuana laws, the bill is aimed at reducing court costs for counties, a McPherson staffer said last week."It’s absolutely not a move to liberalize marijuana," said McPherson press aide Dan Edwards. "Some people might view it that way. It’s really just a clarification of the code."Under current law, possessing less than an ounce of pot is a misdemeanor and calls only for a fine, not jail time. So, a defendant could go to a jury trial but be penalized with only a $100 fine for a first offense. The bill would make the fine more like a parking ticket. Santa Cruz County District Attorney Kate Canlis said she supported the bill not because of trial costs, but because of consistency."It just seems to me this makes the actual crime consistent with the penalty," Canlis said. Consistency was also part of the reason San Mateo County Superior Court Judge Quentin Kopp, a former state lawmaker, began urging his colleagues in the capitol to change the law.Kopp said people charged with misdemeanor possession of marijuana have the right to a public defender and a jury trial, both of which cost much more than the maximum fine that could result.And with last fall’s passage of Proposition 36, which mandated treatment and no jail for first-time drug offenders, the penalties certainly weren’t going to be stiffened."I’m trying to create sense out of a contradictory act," Kopp said. The bill was approved by a senate committee two weeks ago and is headed to the floor of the senate for a vote.As McPherson’s bill is debated, a handful of other states are grappling with marijuana policy. A bill in Nevada would reduce the penalty for possessing less than an ounce from a felony to a misdemeanor punishable by a $500 fine. In Arkansas, a bill would reduce the penalty for possessing less than an ounce from a misdemeanor to a non-criminal infraction. Paul Armentano of the Washington, D.C.-based National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws said there was much debate in the 1970s about easing pot laws, such as those that now exists in California.The anti-drug fervor of the 1980s silenced most of those discussions."Now it appears we’re actually going back to that debate," Armentano said. That is something that NORML applauds.However, some anti-drug groups say the change, even though the penalties stay the same, sends the wrong message."Certainly, it is conveying a message of acceptance," said Mike Newell, a research specialist with Communities Against Substance Abuse in San Diego. Contact Brian Seals at: bseals santa-cruz.com Source: Santa Cruz County Sentinel (CA)Author: Brian Seals, Sentinel Staff WriterPublished: June 3, 2001Copyright: 2001 Santa Cruz County Sentinel Publishers Co.Contact: editorial santa-cruz.comWebsite: http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/Related Articles & Web Site:NORMLhttp://www.norml.org/Senate Panel OKs Lesser Charge for Possession http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread9643.shtmlBill Lessens Penalty for Smoking Marijuana http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread9638.shtmlCannabisNews - Cannabis Archiveshttp://cannabisnews.com/news/list/cannabis.shtml 
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #16 posted by tdm on June 08, 2001 at 15:35:00 PT:
Finis
"But, we can still improve the current system by refusing to accept all government intrusion into personal employment decisions."Wow, Dan. This statement, and the rest of your post for that matter, are ideas I can get behind 100%. Your ability to debate and reason, even when it goes against your initial instincts, are unmatched by almost everyone I come in contact with on a daily basis. There are exceptions, who I also happen to call my friends, but as a rule, reason is forgotten or ignored. I only hope I offer my detractors the same respect you've afforded me.Here's to Cannabis News, and to finding new friends.tdm
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #15 posted by Dan B on June 08, 2001 at 09:54:09 PT:
tdm--You're Quite Convincing
. . . in fact, you have given me pause, and I'm beginning to reconsider. Here is what I think we can both agree on:Currently, the federal government provides financial incentives for employers to drug test their employees. They also actively encourage this practice by promoting government-sponsored hate toward this particular group. Perhaps, then, I can take another tack and pursue legislation that forbids the government from enacting such incentive programs. Clearly, given your insightful comments, you would agree that the federal government has no business influencing personal transactions between an employer and an employee at all. While I'm beginning to agree with the reasoning behind your arguments regarding an employer's right to refuse employment on any grounds, if we are going to retain that right, then we have to insure that the federal government cannot influence that decision at all. Heck, if we could just find a way to get the government out of the picture altogether, we'd have come a long way toward the kind of equality of opportunity in the workplace I think we'd all like to see.Take student loans as another example. While some may disagree with the practice, the government does provide things like student loans (actually, the feds only pay the interest on some loans; they do not provide the loans themselves. Banks provide the loans, and the feds decide who can use the banks to get these particular kinds of loans--invading not only the rights of students, but the rights of the banks as well), it makes sense that they should be forbidden to make exceptions in terms of who can and cannot get those loans. Granted, one can argue that student loans should not be subsidized by the government at all (banks should have enough incentive to achieve favorable customer relations to provide such loans on their own), but since it does provide such subsidies, the government should not be allowed to decide arbitrary "values" for obtaining such loans, including whether or not the person seeking the loan has used drugs. If banks want to make such exclusions, they can do so, but frankly that would not be in their financial best interest (no pun intended). Okay, so I have seen the light. Thanks for sticking with me on this issue (I'm quite stubborn, but I can be convinced). But, we can still improve the current system by refusing to accept all government intrusion into personal employment decisions. If the government is not allowed to forbid an employer to exclude certain people from consideration of employment, neither should the government be allowed to provide incentives that encourage employers to make such exclusions. Fair enough?Dan B
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #14 posted by tdm on June 06, 2001 at 07:37:45 PT:
yet more libertarianism
This thread is so old, I imagine we're only talking to each other, Dan. But I can't resist a good-natured debate, and these are important issues.I'm glad that we've chosen to examine our country's foundational documents in pursuit of answers. Practically speaking, they are the only guides we have with respect to the role of central government. You've chosen specifically to examine the core of the U.S. Declaration of Independence, to wit, governments are instituted to secure our inalienable rights -- Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.First, I need to address one of your key premises: The right to Life dictates that one must have an equal chance to work for a living. You used the word equal extensively in your response, so I think it bears a closer look. Simply put, I don't think right to life is in any way equivalent to equal chance. Nor are right to liberty or right to pursue happiness. I don't mean to pick on your use of "equal chance;" I simply don't see that particular sentiment expressed explicitly or implicitly in any of these foundational documents. I interpret the right to Life to mean the government does its best to prevent our being killed or physically injured by another person, and locks up anyone who chooses to commit such a heinous act. All men *are* created equal, but it's not government's place to maintain equality in every aspect of our lives. That is not only outside granted government powers, it is a practical impossibility. Government's role *is* to secure the three rights mentioned for every single governed person, including racist, bigoted or otherwise "immoral" employers. If an employer chooses to pursue happiness in any way besides using physical force against another person or their property, it is the government's responsibility to secure that right. If these documents protect and secure only popular or "morally right" attitudes and beliefs to the exclusion of those the majority of us would find disgusting, then there's really no point in having the documents at all. We would instead simply determine what the majority wanted and capitulate to that.Now, I'll address my comment about using force on an employer, which you called a fallacy. Your response was that an employer should *not be allowed* to discriminate... Who disallows it? How does the "disallower" prevent the discrimination? In the end, if an employer refuses to comply, force is indeed used by the government against the employer. "Not allowing" and "forcing" are synonymous. You qualified your statement, saying "on any basis other than..." Does this imply that you believe there should be exceptions to intiating the use of force against a person? If so, then the *core* principle of libertarianism, do no harm to a person or their property without their consent, is now off the table and what you are advocating is something other than that core principle.Either the government protects everyone equally under that standard, or that standard is violated. Let me illustrate with an example. Joe Employer is a practicing Christian and believes homosexuality is wrong and immoral. His pursuit of happiness includes not hiring homosexuals because he doesn't want to encourage homosexuality by rewarding it with employment whereby his property, his money, would be used for something contrary to his values. Whether or not his views about homosexuality are right or wrong is immaterial as long as he does not use *physical force* against others in an effort to eliminate "homosexual behavior." Applying your reasoning, regardless of whether any *physical* harm to person or property were perpetrated by the employer, it is perfectly justifiable to use force against the employer in a manner that violates the core values by which he leads his life. I simply cannot accept that a government's behavior in such a scenario could be justified in any way.BTW, thanks for making me use my brain. You are rare in this world.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #13 posted by dddd on June 05, 2001 at 03:19:23 PT
Dan B and tdm
After going over your excellent discussion,I think yourarguments end up being equivilently valid....I think you'veentered an akward realm,in that you end up in the complicatedarea of;;;; how things are,,and,, how things should be...I think you both could prove yourselves to be right,but youwould need to write books to justify your positions.I enjoyed your comments.........keep on keepin' ondddd
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #12 posted by Dan B on June 04, 2001 at 22:21:12 PT:
I Understand What You're Saying, tdm . . .
. . . and I appreciate your patience with me on this. But, I have to still disagree with you. Here's why:Theoretically, you are right; if we went ahead and repealed all of the laws pertaining to discrimination in hiring, firing, housing, etc., then those who practice inhumane hiring and firing (etc.) would, in a perfect world, lose business because of their practices. However, and I stress this emphatically, we do not live in aperfect world. The fact is that this country really did try that approach (it was not long ago that this country had "whites only" establishments that did quite well, thank you), and the results were disastrous for all minorities. Frankly, we have come a long way toward the goal of creating a country where each individual has an equal chance of succeeding. We still have a long way to go.But let me respond to one particular portion of your argument (and, by the way, I find this debate refreshing. I hope we can agree that it is good to at least air out these ideas in order to arrive at a better understanding of one another's point of view). Here is what you wrote:There is no such thing as a right to employment; at least not in the U.S. Constitution. To say otherwise implies that it is OK for anyone who can get the governmet to agree with them, to use the *guns* of that government to *force* an employer to hire them. Actually, your first premise is correct; we do not specifically have the "right to employment" enumerated in the U.S. Constitution, but the Declaration of Independence specifically declares, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness--That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men . . ."We see, then, that the very foundation of this country centers on the fact that everyone is equal and everyone deserves the right to "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness." The right to Life dictates that one must have an equal chance to work for a living. To discriminate on the basis of anything unrelated to job performance runs counter to the letter and spirit of the document upon which this country was founded.Furthermore, it is documented right there for all to see that the purpose of government is to secure these rights to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness for everyone, for "all Men are created equal." That means that it is not only the privilege, but in fact the duty of government to make certain that such rights are not abridged by the governed. That includes employers.Notice, by the way, that there is no "right to discriminate" in all of the U.S. Constitution and Declaration of Independence, except in those few amendments to the Constitution regarding slavery, which have since been repealed. Now, let me point out the fallacy in your second statement that I quoted above. Here is your statement again: "To say otherwise implies that it is OK for anyone who can get the governmet to agree with them, to use the *guns* of that government to *force* an employer to hire them."No, this is not an implication of the argument that I have just made. The argument I have made is that an employer should not be allowed to discriminate against an employee on any basis other than the fact that the employee (or potential employee) is not best qualified to perform the job per the employer's expectations. This means that the employer has every right to not hire the unqualified, and the employer does have the right to come up with his or her own job requirements, provided that they do not infringe on the reasonable rights of indidivuals (in other words, a job qualification cannot be that the individual must be caucasian). If an employer believes that one candidate is better suited for a particular job than another, he or she has the absolute right to insure that the better candidate gets the job. The government has no right to interfere in such a policy.Now, understand what I am saying. I am not saying that employers should be required to hire certain "quotas" of individuals from different backgrounds. I am saying that employers should not be allowed to discriminate against the best qualified candidates simply because of what they do in their time away from work. In the interests of protecting the rights of everyone to pursue life, liberty and happiness, the desires of the few to discriminate on the basis of things unrelated to job performance should be kept to a bare minimum.Dan B
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #11 posted by Imprint on June 04, 2001 at 13:20:45 PT
My two cents
Scenario one:Lets say I was a gay man and that I obtained a job at a company and after a few weeks my boss found out that I was gay and then fired me. There was no problem with my job performance and I didn’t harm anyone but because I was gay I was let go. This would be highly discriminatory, this would be wrong. Scenario two:Lets say I’m a marijuana smoker and I obtained a job at a company and after a few weeks my boss found out that I was a marijuana smoker and then fired me. There was no problem with my job performance and I didn’t harm anyone else but because I was a marijuana smoker I was let go. This would be highly discriminatory, this would be wrong.I don’t see any difference in the two scenarios. Discrimination is discrimination. One could try to muddy the water with “did you flaunt your gayness or marijuana smoking?” and the bottom line is “there was no problem with my job performance and I didn’t harm anyone”. I think Dan B. is on to something here. If one has a genetic predisposition to addiction, just as one may have a genetic predisposition to being gay and all things being equal (job performance and such) there shouldn’t be any problems. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #10 posted by tdm on June 04, 2001 at 08:37:53 PT:
more libertarian thoughts for Dan
"By that reasoning, then, you believe that employers should be allowed to discriminate against anyone for any reason--be it their sexual orientation, their religious beliefs, or their use of unpopular drugs. Am I understanding you correctly?"Yes, you are. While I agree that it is morally wrong to refuse to hire someone based on their sexual orientation, skin color, etc., I don't believe the government should be the entity that passes moral judgment on those who participate in this practice. The government's role should be to protect our bodies and our property from those who would use force to cause physical harm. Nothing more. Let the market decide which businesses should be rewarded for their behavior and which should not. To do otherwise invites government where it does not belong. You can't have it both ways without ending up exactly where we are... or worse.None of your scenarios involved force on the part of the employer. There is no such thing as a right to employment; at least not in the U.S. Constitution. To say otherwise implies that it is OK for anyone who can get the governmet to agree with them, to use the *guns* of that government to *force* an employer to hire them. Next thing you know [insert slippery slope or 70 years of insidious government encroachment here] they're using those same guns to jail people who smoke cannabis in the provacy of their own home.Initiation of force is *never* the solution.(Before I get into a public debate with someone I've never met, let me say, Dan, that I'm a regular reader, and 95% of the time, I think your posts are some of the best-written, most insightful on CN. Never stop voicing your beliefs, even if everyone on the planet were to disagree with them.)tdm
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #9 posted by Dan B on June 04, 2001 at 08:02:34 PT:
Response Part II
Earlier, I stated the following:"Rehabilitation should be available for those whose drug use gets out of hand as evidenced by markedly reduced job performance, inability to act properly toward others, and/or desire to quit using drugs coupled with inability to do so."When I said this, I did not mean to imply that such rehabilitation should be made available by the employers. Indeed, employers should not be compelled to provide any such services to employees. Just as they have no business getting involved with whatever problems employees manage to get themselves into, neither should they be required to bale their employees out when the employees' personal decisions get them into trouble. All I meant by that comment was that such rehabilitation services should be available. If employers want to provide such services to their employees (I believe many who value their employees would), that decision should be left up to them--not the government.Dan B
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #8 posted by Dan B on June 04, 2001 at 07:47:31 PT:
Response to tdm
By that reasoning, then, you believe that employers should be allowed to discriminate against anyone for any reason--be it their sexual orientation, their religious beliefs, or their use of unpopular drugs. Am I understanding you correctly? The problem with your premise is that it would serve only to shove all of these groups back into the closet for fear of losing their employment for no good reason. Sorry, but I have to disagree with you. It is as wrong to fire someone for something that person does (or did) on his or her personal time as it is to incarcerate that person. Frankly, my view favors the individual more than yours because it extends protections from governmental sanctions against personal behavior to employers, meaning that employers would not have the right to pry into their employees' personal business, where they do not belong in the first place. That does not make it less libertarian. That makes it less pro-employer and more pro-employee. Unless you assert that libertarian views must favor employers over employees, it makes no sense to say that this view runs counter to libertarian principles.Your position merely favors rights that are not rights. Employers do not have the right to pry into their employees' personal lives, although many presume to assert such a right. If an employee is incapable of fulfilling the duties associated with his or her job, the employer has a right to fire that person. If an employee is disrupting the work of other employees by trying to push his or her views on others, the employer has the right to fire that employee. But employers do not have the right to, say, give random drug tests to see which of their qualified, hard-working employees might be using illegal drugs at home.Dan B
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #7 posted by tdm on June 04, 2001 at 07:12:53 PT:
libertarian principles
I disagree with the direction this particular string of posts is headed. The concept that we should pass laws telling employers that they are *not free* to hire or reject any job candidate they please, for any reason they please, is that very concept which has led us to where we are today with our insane drug laws. Telling an employer what they can and cannot do when their actions cause no physical harm to another person's person or property is no different than telling you or I that we cannot ingest any substance we please. I'd urge you to rethink your premises.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #6 posted by Dan B on June 04, 2001 at 00:54:29 PT:
And Now For the Serious Response . . .
To answer the first part of your question, Imprint, I would hope for a grander result than a mere rescheduling of marijuana. That is, I want to repeal the Controlled Substances Act altogether, replacing it with regulations on certain types of drugs, and forbidding none, at least under regulated circumstances. There should be no such thing as a Schedule 1 drug to begin with, and it shouldn't be illegal to use anything one wants to use to enhance one's life (either in actuality or merely perceived). By the way, one major regulation I would impose is to forbid giving someone else any drug against his or her will. For example, any offense involving the use of a drug for the purpose of committing date rape would be doubly punishable, first for the rape and secondly for the misuse of the drug to impair another person without that person's consent. Consent should always be the rule: as with responsible sex, so with responsible drug use.I think that the chances of repealing the CSA would be enhanced after laws are passed forbidding discrimination against drug users. People should be hired and fired on the basis of their job performance (including the ability to get along with others and act responsibly at work), not their drug use. Rehabilitation should be available for those whose drug use gets out of hand as evidenced by markedly reduced job performance, inability to act properly toward others, and/or desire to quit using drugs coupled with inability to do so.I realize this is a "pie in the sky" approach, but I believe it is consistent with my libertarian beliefs. Thanks, by the way, for your "creative thinking" remark. I consider that high praise coming from you.Sincerely,Dan B
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #5 posted by Dan B on June 04, 2001 at 00:42:30 PT:
Imprint: LOL
Actually, I noticed the connection between "back door" and "sodomy laws" after I wrote it, but I figured that if anyone else caught onto it, it would likely provide a chuckle more than an offense. If it did offend, I hope whomever was offended can forgive me. I couldn't resist keeping it there just to see if anyone would notice.Dan B
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #4 posted by Imprint on June 03, 2001 at 19:02:01 PT
Creative Thinking
Dan B.Good idea! We sure aren’t getting anywhere fast from the front door. Besides it makes sense; discrimination is discrimination. If this tact was taken and won do you think it would be strong enough to force marijuana off of the schedule I list or would it be the same as the current medical defense? In other words we would have a state law that is in direct conflict with the federal law, so would we have the same conflict we now have? Also, as a side note I like the way you waved the term “back door” and “sodomy laws” in the same paragraph. Surely that wasn’t intentional or maybe subconscious. Just joking, I don’t want to offend anyone. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #3 posted by Dan B on June 03, 2001 at 15:03:43 PT:
California, Discrimination, and the Drug War
I recall that Santa Cruz was the first city to change the law to make discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and appearance (including height and weight) illegal, along with the usual components of race, color, creed, etc. Soon, the whole country began implementing such revisions to its anti-discrimination laws. The idea is to make people understand that discrimination is discrimination--that bigotry is bigotry, no matter the form it takes.The model for lowering criminal sanctions for marijuana use comes from another place in California--Mendocino County, where possession and cultivation of marijuana are both legal. Santa Cruz is a step behind in this category, but still much more progressive than the bulk of the country. The difference is that people do not yet understand that criminal sanctions against people who grow, possess and use cannabis are as evil as criminal sanctions against people because they happen to be gay. In fact, such sanctions against those who smoke habitually are especially heinous because many sociological studies have shown that the tendency toward such psychological "addiction" appears to be genetic. The same can be said about criminal sanctions against alcoholics or hard drug users. Unless these addictions (I would call them differences in lifestyle) adversely affect job performance, firing or discrimination against hiring people who have these lifestyle differences should be illegal. Perhaps that is the way to change overall public opinion. Perhaps we can go at this from a civil perspective, passing laws against discrimination toward those who choose to live in a manner different from the majority, but who can still lead productive lives. Certainly marijuana users would fall into this category.If we could get that far, we would see a massive push toward ending the drug war. It would be a back door into the full legalization and regulation of illegal substances, the argument being that if you can't discriminate in the workplace, neither should we be able to discriminate against these people by throwing them in jail (remember the sodomy laws?). It's an option to think about. I would bet that California would be a good place to start.Dan B
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #2 posted by Imprint on June 03, 2001 at 10:23:36 PT
It’s about the money
They aren’t just trying to reduce the court cost but to reduce the cost for all aspects of the administration of apprehension and punishment for small amounts of marijuana. California is staring at Prop. 36 and is grappling with ways to keep the cost under control. Even with the good economic times California has enjoyed Prop. 36 is a massive undertaking. This could be a good thing. With marijuana as an infraction and not a misdemeanor folks may be more inclined to practice civil disobedience and many more people may come out of the closet to protest. Right now there is a large pool of middle class, middle-aged citizens that are just too afraid to be known for marijuana consumption. Financially, they feel they have too much to loose, not to mention the social stigma that is placed on them. Kids looking to obtain financial aid for collage wouldn’t be unfairly passed over because of simple possession of marijuana. An infraction, for the most part, is benign and doesn’t follow you for the rest of your life. Lets face it, this is a far cry from legalization but we have been unsuccessful with the Supreme Court, the US Senate is afraid to move on legalization and Gary Johnson is nearly alone in the political arena. This could be a place to soften the penalties and further this could be a place to start a track record. If successfully implemented California could show a dramatic lowering of court/civil costs and a drop in arrests while showing no ill effects on society at large. I’m just trying to be positive and any win is a win
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by dddd on June 03, 2001 at 09:20:29 PT
good...but kinda weird
 I gotta say that Northern California has led the way inin amazing moves forward....... I think it becomes rather curious,, when you think about howpeculiar the thought of getting a citation for weed,,like a trafficticket......... One can only imagine where this ticketing thing wouldlead,,,,,,Immediatly,the anti machine would kick into gear.Laws wouldbe introduced ,like three tickets,and your drivers license is suspended,or your insurance goes up,because you are now considered a "drug offender"....It's kinda like the slight easing of the harshness of prohibition,,,is causingthis sort of mutation of the insanity,,with "treatment",,and "fines" for havingMarijuana....It strikes me as a potential quagmire,in that it creates this murkyarea that makes legalization that much easier for uncle sam to postpone....It creates this gray area,and it still assumes drugs are illegal.cheers.............................dddd 
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment


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