cannabisnews.com: Senate Votes To Decriminalize Pot Senate Votes To Decriminalize Pot Posted by FoM on June 05, 2001 at 16:52:24 PT By Jim Sams, Capitol Bureau Chief Source: Stockton Record The state Senate voted Monday to decriminalize marijuana, a substance so controversial that it's listed as a dangerous narcotic under federal statute but considered so inconsequential in California that possession of small amounts is less serious than a traffic ticket. Coincidentally, also Monday the Nevada Legislature passed a bill to make minor possession of marijuana a misdemeanor instead of a felony and implement a voter-approved ballot measure that allows medical use of the weed. "Clearly the climate is opening up a bit," said Keith Stroup, executive director of the National Organization for Reform of Marijuana Laws in Washington, D.C. "I think a lot of elected officials are feeling it's safe to have a healthy debate on this." California since 1976 has levied a maximum fine of $100 for possession of small amounts of marijuana, but a conviction is still a misdemeanor. The Senate voted 22-12 to make possession of less than an ounce by first-time offenders an infraction so that the status of the offense will match the punishment. Former state Sen. Quentin Kopp asked for the change after he was appointed to the San Mateo County Superior Court bench. Within a few weeks of his appointment, Kopp learned that defendants -- hoping to avoid a record and knowing they can lose no more than $100 -- often ask for a jury trial and a court-appointed attorney to defend them. He said jury selection can be a major challenge for prosecutors, and the process is a waste of taxpayers' money. "Juries can't understand the reason they are spending three days in court for this kind of offense. You start asking juries if they have any feelings about this quantity of marijuana, and you'll be surprised. Imagine what it's like in some counties like Humboldt or Mendocino." According to the National Organization for Reform of Marijuana Laws, California law enforcement made 58,068 marijuana arrests in 1997, ranking 42nd in the nation in per-capita arrests. Stroup said California was one of 11 states that decided in the 1970s to stop using jails and prisons to punish people convicted of minor possession. Nevada is the last state in the union where minor possession is still a felony, Stroup said, but the bill on its way to Gov. Kenny Guinn would change that to a maximum fine of $600 for a first offense. "The country, I think, is finally recognizing that marijuana is not an addictive drug," said the Nevada bill's author, Assemblywoman Chris Giunhigliani, D-Las Vegas. "It's a habit-forming drug, but it's not addictive." Voters in California, Arizona, Colorado, Oregon, Maine and Nevada have passed initiatives that allow the medical use of marijuana. This attitude of more tolerance, as Stroup described it, conflicts with a more-conservative stance by federal law enforcement and courts. The U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled that federal law makes no exemption for marijuana use by ill patients, which leaves people who distribute the substance open for federal prosecution. The tough-on-drugs stand also was evident in the vote on the marijuana decriminalization bill that passed the California Senate on Monday, Both Republicans and Democrats opposed the bill, which was introduced by Republican Sen. Bruce McPherson of Santa Cruz. Sen. Michael Machado, D-Linden, voted yes during a roll call but switched his vote to a no after the bill had gotten more than enough votes to pass the Senate. Sen. Rico Oller, R-San Andreas, also voted against the measure. "It wasn't an easy vote," Oller said. "Both sides had good arguments. I think reasonable people can differ on this." * To reach Capitol Bureau Chief Jim Sams - e-mail: sacto recordnet.com Source: Record, The (CA)Author: Jim Sams, Capitol Bureau Chief Published: Tuesday, June 5, 2001 Copyright: 2001 The RecordContact: editor recordnet.comWebsite: http://www.recordnet.com/Related Articles & Web Site:NORMLhttp://www.norml.org/Bill Would Reduce Marijuana Court Costshttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread9955.shtmlSenate Panel OKs Lesser Charge for Possession http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread9643.shtmlCannabisNews Articles - Cannabishttp://cannabisnews.com/news/list/cannabis.shtml Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help Comment #19 posted by SWAMPIE on June 07, 2001 at 01:38:24 PT o-HIGH-o's drug laws Dear FoM,Ibelieve your basic quote on Ohio's drug laws to be pretty accurate,except for the catch-22,as it were...We here in Ohio have a double-jeopardy situation in the fact that even though it is a misdemeanor to be caught with less than 99 grams of pot and pay a small fine and costs,it is MANDATORY that if you have a drivers' licence,even though you aren't necessarily caught in or near any vehicle,that your drivers'license will be automatically be suspended for one year!!!No matter if you are even caught on your own front porch!You can get a permit to drive to work and back,but if you go to the grocery store and get pulled over,you get charged with driving under suspension!!!They make you wear an ankle bracelet too,so they can monitor if you leave the house when you aren't at work!I,personally haven't had that happen to me,but have known many others who have!It is very expensive to jump through all of the hoops that they put in front of you!You also have to take a level-checked piss test to make sure your levels are going down,and most of the time,there is drug counseling and AA/NA meetings mandated on you too!3 to 5 times a week!!!One counselor that I know isn't against pot,except that it is illegal!!We have talked in-depth about this matter and she also agrees that something needs to be done,but her hands are tied because of these STUPID LAWS!!! The only thing to do is to get more people on our side,and we'll get there eventually!I perssonally know councilpersons,police officers,mayors,and alot of well-to-do people that think the laws need to be changed,but they are afraid to speak out on this subject because it could cost them their reputations and jobs.We will win in the end,but it is going to take alot of work.Back when I was about 17,I even got high with a sherriff,even though he caught me red-handed with a joint,and told me I was under arrest,took the doobie,took a big hit,then laughed like hell when I almost wet my pants!!!!Ahhhh,the good old days!!!!ONWARD THROUGH THE FOG!!!!! SWAMPIE [ Post Comment ] Comment #18 posted by Robbie on June 06, 2001 at 13:11:33 PT Arcturus justme left this link earlier in the threadhttp://www.secstate.wa.gov/inits/people01.htm [ Post Comment ] Comment #17 posted by Kevin Hebert on June 06, 2001 at 09:17:25 PT: What am I still doing in Massachusetts? Is the question I have to ask myself after reading this fantastic news. This is a huge step, and except for the CAMP thugs and DEA, will allow a lot more breathing room for Cali cannabis users. It's about time, and high time reform spreads to the rest of the less-enlightened states. [ Post Comment ] Comment #16 posted by arcturus on June 06, 2001 at 08:40:09 PT: i766!?! I'm a registered Washington voter, but I live in Japan, so I'm a little out of touch. This is the first I've heard of i766, and the closing date for signatures is July 6th! There has been no news on this, and I can't find a website for these folks anywhere. I worked with the Hemp Initiative Projects people a few years back and we were way off for the sigs. I hope this time around they've got some backers to pay gatherers. Does anyone know how I can sign? URL? Thanks. [ Post Comment ] Comment #15 posted by kaptinemo on June 06, 2001 at 07:44:12 PT: Jorma, the numbers could vary with regards to how many states going decrim before the Feds catch on.If we are talking population, I'd say about 10 more States. And probably Western ones; the East is still too mired in the knee-jerk "Federal Government=God" mindset. A mindset all too prevalent here in MD.If we are talking political importance, the number could actually be smaller. Places that are flush with 'expendible income' are places where people can afford to be politically active, taking a stand instead of being forced to 'grunt and roll over'. For example, California is a major economic powerhouse, despite her temporal problems with blackouts. When Prop215 bit the normally slow-on-the-uptake, dinosaur-like antis on their tails, they woke up, and fast. A major economic nexus went and thumbed its' nose at them. What if New York State did the same thing? Florida? What if my neighboring State of Virginia, with its' huge burgeoning NoVA economy, began to seriously move towards decrim? It would be a very, very large bucket of Arctic-cold water down the anti's backs. It would shock other State pols (which have kow-towed to Washington for so long as their de facto plantation 'big house' that they can't conceive of asserting their rights as States again) into re-reading their various State Constitutions. And realizing who they really work for...and why.Dangerous thinking, that. Dangerous to the health of a bloated, overweening, paternalistic-bordering-on-tyrannical Federal government. That's why they are so quick to spread their propaganda manure when the subject pops up, hoping to drown it. [ Post Comment ] Comment #14 posted by Nate H. on June 06, 2001 at 07:06:20 PT pot penalties Pot penalties in United States:Between 1967 and 1973, virtually every U.S. state, except Nevada, reduced marijuana possession from a felony to a misdemeanour.Between 1973 and 1978, eleven states - Oregon, Alaska, Maine, Mississippi, New York, Nebraska, Ohio, Colorado, California, Minnesota and North Carolina - "decriminalized" pot possession to some degree (ie. made it a non-criminal offence or reduced the penalty to the level of a traffic ticket).The status of pot in these so-called "decrim" states varied enormously - thanks to a 1975 decision by the state Supreme court, it was virtually legal to smoke pot in private in Alasaka. In California, the penalty for small-time possession was set at $1OO, but you still got a criminal record for a misdemeanour upon conviction.Not to make things even more confusing, but many cities or municipalities also reduced marijuana possession charges: under city law, small pot charges are ticketable offences in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, Ann Arbor, Michigan, East Lansing, Michigan, and several other areas that I can't remember.In 199O, Alaska "recriminalized" marijuana following a state-wide referendum.In 1999, the Oregon legislature tried to recriminalize pot but this move was blocked by a state referendum.In 2OOO, Proposition 36 in California more or less decriminalized all first and second time drug possession charges - people no longer go to court and jail, but to treatment instead. A similiar referendum passed in Arizona in 1998.Hope this is helpful.Nate H.Toronto, ON [ Post Comment ] Comment #13 posted by just me on June 06, 2001 at 06:29:53 PT: The Kitchen Sink... It may not make it but I sure like the way it's worded. I DO think that the "kitchen sink" has a better chance in Washington than it did in Alaska, but I could be wrong. Sorry man, no other info besides that link. I'd love to know more, too. We should strive for this type of reform in EVERY State, not just Washington. [ Post Comment ] Comment #12 posted by jorma nash on June 06, 2001 at 05:39:41 PT Washington i766 i766 isn't just medical cannabis folks,this is cultivation, sale, amnesty, the kitchen sink.i'm worried it might go too far, in the sense that Alaska's kitchen sink initiative was the only measure that *didn't* pass last cycle.boy, i'd love to be proven wrong here.just me:do you have any info on how the signature drive is proceeding?they only have a month left, i see.anybody in Washington State, wondering how to make a difference:call this guy up and help with the signature drive. Sponsor(s)Ross M Hallett312 E 11thPort Angeles, WA 98362(360)452-5701 [ Post Comment ] Comment #11 posted by just me on June 06, 2001 at 04:19:12 PT: and the beat goes on... jorma nash: I know of what I speak ;) Frank isn't teh only one who "get's it" but there is opposition from the ignorant. Some people may think that ignorant is an insult, it is not. It simplely means uninformed on a particular subject. As for the other flame war, I stand by everything I said. If you go back and read it you'll see I quoted the Washington Init. 766 link there, too. I just don't see how "And so it should" was going to help marijuana reform here. The bush-bashing was just an added pet peeve :P Whereas, if all 50 states passed similar 766 laws, wouldn't THAT be sweet? I honestly think it'll happen. It's just a matter of time and education of the ignorant. [ Post Comment ] Comment #10 posted by jorma nash on June 06, 2001 at 01:23:47 PT house bill H.R. 1344 excellent links, just me.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~before clicking on the link, i bet myself a cookie that the bill was sponsored by Barney Frank.(needless to say, i won the bet.)i first heard the name during the Shadow Conventions, he was a speaker, i believe.in his speech, he said something vaguely like"I'll do everything i can to end or reduce the damages of the drug war"and i guess he means it.although not nearly as well known as, say, a Govenor Gary Johnson, he is probably the best friend we have in congress at the moment.he is every bit as deserving of letters of support, good karma, etc. etc.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~P.S. i like this kind of posting a lot more than a silly flame war, just me, i hope to see more of your informative comments! [ Post Comment ] Comment #9 posted by just me on June 06, 2001 at 00:33:41 PT: Still Wondering... California Senate passed the bill (SB-791) to the California Assembly but it's still not a law. It WILL be an infraction but as of now, it's still a misdemeanor. I'm not completely sure of other States but I think Ca will be the 1st to make it an infractionjorma nash: "how many states will it take to change laws before the so-called "federal" government finally realizes it is utterly out of touch on this issue?" Hard to say, but there's also reform happening on the Federal level. See: H.R. 1344 at http://capwiz.com/norml2/issues/bills/?billnum=H.R.1344&congress=107 The Federal Government IS coming around, it's just slower than some of the States. As I've posted in a few other threads, the best reform proposal that I've seen so far is the State of Washington's Initiative 766 see: http://www.secstate.wa.gov/inits/people01.htm Slowly but surely, I hope to see this type of reform in all 50 States. [ Post Comment ] Comment #8 posted by Imprint on June 06, 2001 at 00:09:05 PT Can't get text for California to post Can't get text for California to post [ Post Comment ] Comment #7 posted by Imprint on June 06, 2001 at 00:06:26 PT Part of my text didn't show up- sorry Up till now California’s law was as follows, which I think is a misdemeanor. California: [ Post Comment ] Comment #6 posted by Imprint on June 06, 2001 at 00:03:44 PT Still Wondering I went to the NORML web site and looked at each of the state’s penalties and check the minimum amount vs. penalty (http://www.norml.org/legal/state_laws1.shtml). Except for the below states all other states carry a sentence and (or) rehabilitation and (or) probation. I assume these kinds of penalties would be a minimum of a misdemeanor up to a felony. This is why I have asked the question in my earlier posting. For California to change the minimum amount vs. penalty to an infraction is a substantial change. An infraction is nothing more than a ticket and fine, usually taken care of via mail. Up till now California’s law was as follows, which I think is a misdemeanor. These states showed no additional penalties. I don’t know if the below listed states consider this an infraction or misdemeanor. Colorado Maine Mississippi New York Ohio Oregon This is why I was asking that if California was the only state to make a minimum possession charge an infraction. [ Post Comment ] Comment #5 posted by FoM on June 05, 2001 at 23:21:04 PT Imprint These are Ohio's laws on possession of below 100 grams to not above 200 grams I think. I could be reading it wrong but I believe this is right.C Conditional release. The state allows conditional release or alternative or diversion sentencing for people facing their first prosecutions. Usually, conditional release lets a person opt for probation rather than trial. After successfully completing probation, the individual's criminal record does not reflect the charge. D Decriminalization. The state has decriminalized marijuana to some degree. Typically, decriminalization means no prison time or criminal record for first-time possession of a small amount for personal consumption. The conduct is treated like a minor traffic violation. Possession: >/= 100 grams: $250 [ Post Comment ] Comment #4 posted by Imprint on June 05, 2001 at 22:11:48 PT Help me out here To my knowledge California is the only state that reduced possession of less than one ounce of Marijuana to an infraction. There are several states that have passed medical necessity laws for marijuana. But, straight up possession of marijuana in all other states varies form misdemeanor to felony. Is this correct? [ Post Comment ] Comment #3 posted by MDG on June 05, 2001 at 20:59:26 PT: How many states? I'm guessing fifty. [ Post Comment ] Comment #2 posted by jorma nash on June 05, 2001 at 19:38:33 PT That's, what, eight states now? many prohibitionists were hoping the Supreme Court decisionwould have a chilling effect on states relaxing their cannabis policies.they must be terribly upset.as has been asked here before, how many states will it take to change lawsbefore the so-called "federal" government finally realizesit is utterly out of touch on this issue? [ Post Comment ] Comment #1 posted by Imprint on June 05, 2001 at 18:19:08 PT Good Step forward This is a good step forward. I’m pleased to see it. I’m hoping that this is a start to an overall easing of marijuana prosecution. Maybe we will start to see all those closet smokers come out and smoke a joint in protest now. It really seems to be about money. Local governments just can’t afford hundreds of jury trials. Pot smokers wised up and started to make the local governments spend lots of money. That’s why I like to see things like the Kubby case and the recent recall election here in California. I just love it when we hear about a medical marijuana smoker demanding their pot back; this forces the local government to cough up dough. [ Post Comment ] Post Comment Name: Optional Password: E-Mail: Subject: Comment: [Please refrain from using profanity in your message] Link URL: Link Title: