I'd like to see a bill passed that would impose a fine on any politician who claims to be tough AND SMART on crime:

No jail for pot, lawmaker urges


People caught with an ounce or less of marijuana would be ticketed but would not face jail time under a bill that a Houston lawmaker said Tuesday makes sense and still sends the message that officials don't want Texans smoking dope. The bill by Democratic Rep. Harold Dutton would make possession of an ounce or less of marijuana a Class C misdemeanor, punishable by a maximum $500 fine. That's the equivalent of a traffic ticket. Right now, possession of 2 ounces or less of marijuana is a Class B misdemeanor, which could mean a jail sentence of up to 180 days and a $2,000 fine.

Dutton said Texas has been tough on crime, and now it's time to be smart. The current punishment is "clogging up our criminal justice system," said Dutton, adding that he tried but failed to get the Legislature to approve the idea last year.

The Combined Law Enforcement Associations of Texas has not seen the bill or taken an official position on it, said CLEAT political and legislative director Charley Wilkison.

What are the arguments against such a scheme? I am pretty ambivalent about the proposal but I am interested in hearing why we shouldn't move in this direction.

DWIs "clog" our system, too. Why not make them Class C? How about Family Violence Assault cases? We spend a greatly disproportionate amount of time in dealing with such cases, bumping them down to the JP courts would really free up our county courts-at-law.

When did we decide that the punishment for the crime should be inversely proportional to the amount of judicial resources it takes up? By this logic, any crime which is committed frequently should be treated as less of a problem than those crimes which hardly ever occur.

Maybe a better tactic would be to require a minimum jail sentence of 180 days. Perhaps then fewer people would be inclined to commit the crime and our court systems would no longer be so "clogged."

I guess it depends on how you look at the crimes. DWI and Family violence assault crimes have a victim. Possession of an ounce of marijuana is a victimless crime. If we make possession a Class C, it will free the resources and the system to go after the more severe crimes.

Let us take as given that family violence and DWI cases will not be a part of the reduction in penalty for possession of marijuana. I don't think it is productive to question the zeal of prosecutors who would advocate or at least not object to lesser penalties for possessing small amounts of mj. Let's engage the issue...why not? Personally, I don't care one way or the other but to raise the spectre of lesser penalties for other crimes is, with respect, question begging.

Well, there is certainly debate on both parts of this proposed legislation. If you take Wes' proposal (you know like mandatory DWI time), we'll cut down on the pot smokers. If you take the legislator's proposal, we would be using our laws to promote the seriousness of the situation. Frankly, as a defense attorney, I see good and bad in this proposal. I make good money off of retained POM cases, most if not all are under 2 oz. The upshot would be a loss of a steady stream of business. However, I balance this with my brother's (comical) observation that pot smokers are not highly motivated to go on a "pot" induced rampage and gun down a mall or commit car-jackings, they like to veg, watch MTV and call out for pizza. It is high time that it is made a Class C misdemeanor, and even facing a loss of profits, I applaud the measure as timely.

Anyone else see humor in Beck's statement: "It is high time that it is made a Class C misdemeanor."?

I think there should be a difference between 'personal use amounts' and clear distribution amounts.

Take a look at the basic controlled substance amount ladder: anything under 28 grams of Cocaine used to be a 2nd degree felony. Now, amounts under one gram are SJF's. One gram is about 5 or so 'hits' or uses.

MJ is sold in 'Quarter bags' or 1/4 ounce amounts. (several joints worth) Perhaps the cutoff should be 1/4 ounce instead of 1 ounce. I think that would be logically related to the amount ladders of other substances.

I also find it entertaining that someone would log on and create an account with no information whatsoever in the profile to post a singular opinion in a drug discussion.

(Notice the speaker claims to be included by saying "If _we_ make possession a Class C,")

My money is: it's John Bradley lurking trying to stir up the discussion!

Thanks for reading the humor into my post, I try not to take myself too seriously. We were discussing this over lunch, and I had no idea what amount baggies were sold in. I saw them often as a prosecutor (and teenager of the late 70s/early 80s), but when asked I could not remember what the amount was. Thanks, you answered that question. 1/4 ounce sounds reasonable, a couple of joints sounds like personal use. However, having lots of clients that describe usages to me, (and a faithful watcher of That 70's show) I am of the impression that marijuana is a very social thing. One person brings a few joints (but is a 'bogart' if he doesn't share), sparks it up and passes it around. Low level distribution?

Okay, so I knew a few pot smokers back when I was younger, but I never heard the term "bogart" until I read the Harry Potter books . . .

The great Lowell George, front man for the immortal Little Feat, had a song called "Don't Bogart that Joint, My Friend." The first few lines?

Roll another one,
Just like the other one.
You've been hanging on to it,
And I sure would like a hit.

I have not found that I need a secret identity to spark disagreement or discussion. I have been told that my mere presence sometimes makes people disagree, regardless of the issue.

So, I must formally deny that I am Member06. Of course, that's also what Bruce Wayne would say.

Granted that my logic classes were a century ago, but - -
Less than an ounce of MJ is referred to as "personal use"

The appropriate place to use (for personal use)a mind altering substance (currently pain killers), is in the home.

Searching a home requires either a warrant - normally for something more serious than 2 oz of MJ, or it being in plain sight when officers have a reason to be in the home.

Therefore - isn't that amount, used in private, already basically legal??

My concern with dropping it to a Class C (and I get those, too!) is that we will have more people driving while under its influence, publically intoxicated by it and the like. So - the final effect will be to elimiate one Class B and make several others more common.

Am I understanding this legislation correctly? Is it Dutton's intention to make this offense one of those for which an arrest may no longer be made? Only a ticket?

I'm not going to get into the debate on the seriousness of the possession of "personal use" quantities of marihuana. I am however concerned about removing another offense from the category of offenses for which an arrest may be made. I wonder how many times law enforcement officers have used an arrest, even for a Class "B" or "C" Misdemeanor, to facilitate an investigation of a more serious (perhaps felony) offense. Sometimes just being able to take someone into custody may give rise to an opportunity for a more thorough custodial intorrogation resulting in a confession. Seems to me that if this law were to pass, this is yet another investigative tool that might be lost. Any thoughts?

quote:

---

Originally posted by BLeonard:
Let us take as given that family violence and DWI cases will not be a part of the reduction in penalty for possession of marijuana. I don't think it is productive to question the zeal of prosecutors who would advocate or at least not object to lesser penalties for possessing small amounts of mj. Let's engage the issue...why not? Personally, I don't care one way or the other but to raise the spectre of lesser penalties for other crimes is, with respect, question begging.

---

My point was not that I'm afraid that will happen, but to point out that there are no crimes that do not place a burden on the system to some degree. The reduction of a penalty range for a crime should never be a result of how many people commit it--you talk about your slippery slopes! If a certain number of people commit a crime at one penalty range, it doesn't take a logician to figure out that a lesser penalty will result in more people committing the crime. You lower the price, you're gonna get more buyers.

If the real question is whether marijuana use should even be illegal or not, then ask THAT question. I just think it is hypocritical to say we are going to have a law against it solely for the purpose of demonstrating that we don't like it. If you don't care about people doing it, but you still want the State to make some money off it, then just legalize it and tax it. If society is no longer prepared to say it's wrong, then legalize it. If it is still just as wrong today as it was yesterday, then reducing the penalty does not send that message.

If the legislature wants to do this, fine, less work for me. My problem is, don't give me a B.S. reason for doing it that doesn't make sense. If you want to engage the issue, then do it straight up. Find me a legislator who will just say "I think it should be legal because I don't think there is anything wrong with it." Then we have a real debate. But complaining that it costs money to enforce the law begs, I think, far more questions.

I am not advocating for any particular position but the question remains: why not reduce the penalty? NO ONE has advanced a reason that is worthy of discussion. We all know that small pot cases are no big deal. Why not make the penalty for possession of 1/2-1/4 ounce a class C?

The resources we have are not unlimited and there certainly is a place for making the decision to reduce the penalty for a crime that many people commit....see repeal of prohibition. I would note that there are death-worthy defendants out there who are tried on capital waivers for lack of funds so don't tell me that economics do not inform our decisions even in the biggest cases. Prosecute them all and let God sort them out is, I guess, one philosophy. Tell me again, who was it advocating for 180 days flat time for POM?

It is so typically American to let the user off while pounding the dealer. Apparently, our sense of personal responsibility does not include minor violations of law.

What is the legal difference between the guilt of the major drug dealer shipping 2,000 pounds of weed to the big city and the end user who buys the ounce? While I agree there is a difference in punishment, guilt is equal for both.

The hypocrites who push for decriminalization to the level of a fine for end users do not have the courage to state their real opinion: Dope is good and should be available to all who want it.

This is a lot like a lot of other modern "progressive" ideas. People realize they can't effectively state their real goal, so they push for an incremental approach.

For example, you used to hear much more about people being against the death penalty because they found it philosophically unacceptable. Apparently, those people have all died or retired from the debate. Now, they announce themselves to be in favor of the death penalty, they just want to make sure it is carried out fairly.

Then they proceed to recommend an endless series of "improvements" that, if accepted, would effectively prevent the imposition of the death penalty. For a good example of this approach, just check out Sen. Ellis' position on litigating who is mentally retarded and, therefore, ineligble for the death penalty.

For a good example of an abolitionist admitting this approach, go read 63 Ohio St. L.J. 417, an article written by a UT Law Professor who has testified before the Texas Legislature in favor of certain "reform", while admitting in his article that he is a death penalty abolitionist. Yet, when asked by the chair of the Criminal Justice Committee, he denied being an abolitionist.

My deal is that if you reduce "personal use" amounts of marijuana to a Class C, you are taking out what deferred adjudication/probation does for these offenders. Number #1 Education-- These kids, and they usually are kids, are taught through the Drug Offender Education Program, not to be doing this crap. #2- They are monitored (kind-of) through UA's. #3-- They have an incentive to not be doing weed anymore i.e. not do jail time, not get a conviction.

If you make it a class C, mommy & daddy pay the fine, and these kids will go out and smoke more weed. Atleast with Class B's some (definitely, not all) will not be repeat offenders.

So all you hippy, pot-smoking people should not be advocating dropping it down to a C, but getting more reasources for the judicial system!

I think Lee Hon has a good point if the intention of this law change would eliminate an arrestable offense. How many times does a cocaine or meth case start out with "the officer smelled the odor of marihuana coming from the vehicle," and later on in the investigation, we find out the defendant not only has weed, but he has the hard stuff, too.

The other point about "nipping it in the bud" (sorry, couldn't resist that pun) and putting young dope smokers on deferred makes sense. Don't you think this keeps some people from graduating to other drugs, or at least gives them an excuse to tell their peers that they can't do drugs?

quote:

---

So all you hippy, pot-smoking people should not be advocating dropping it down to a C, but getting more reasources for the judicial system!

---

[/QUOTE] The hypocrites who push for decriminalization to the level of a fine for end users do not have the courage to state their real opinion: Dope is good and should be available to all who want it.
[/QUOTE]

We have about run the gamut of rhetorical evasion: straw men, slippery slope, question begging, imputation of ulterior motive and now, the piece de resistance, the attack ad homenim. At least Mr. Bradley brings forward a point worthy of discussion. No one can deny that the existence of an end-user demands a supplier but no one has suggested legalization. Mr. Ray points out that penalties for possession of under one gram of cocaine have dropped from a possibility of twenty years to a maximum of two. Does anyone think this means that the government looks with approbation on cocaine possession? Has the incidence of use of cocaine
increased? To the contrary, studies show fewer young people tried cocaine every year for the past five years, although I doubt any causation or correlation exists there.

The argument that a deferred on a B or A misdemeanor should be retained in order to compel treatment and evaluation has merit as well, but if the DL suspension remains in place that goal could be met: no DL until completion of a course of treatment.

As to arrest power, no one has implied that just because the penalty is a class C that police would not be empowered to make an arrest; see City of Lago Vista. By the way: why is it that our legislature has seen fit to deny police the power to arrest when a person is operating a motor vehicle with an open conatiner?

It seems to me that this topic has been taken as an opportunity for some to engage in "member measuring." I guess some prosecutors a tougher than others?

[This message was edited by BLeonard on 12-30-04 at .]

[This message was edited by BLeonard on 12-30-04 at .]

[This message was edited by BLeonard on 12-30-04 at .]