The text of the bill doesn't remove the possibility of arrest, but it does exclude these class C POMs from the driver's license suspension, so no penalty other than the fine. Even speeders and MIP offenders eventually lose their driver's licenses or graduate to a higher level offense if they become habitual. Class C POM repeat offenders though will presumably only be limited by the amount of fines that they are willing to pay. Not even a drug education program, regardless of age or criminal history. Just pay the fine when you're unlucky enough to get caught. How does that not amount to a "legalize it and tax it" situation? Are we ready to reduce a drug offense that people have been doing jail time for to the equivalent of a seat belt ticket? The idea that dockets are glutted with user amount pot cases is spurious, I think. There's no minimum jail time on the class B offense now, so I'd bet many offices are doing fine-only punishments when appropriate and if needed to move cases. But they have other options if warranted. This also creates a pretty big disparity: 1.1 oz and you can do 6 months, 1 oz and you just write a check. Will that kind of arbitrary illogic make it easier or harder to enforce the more serious drug laws? This may score this legislator some points with his constiuents, but its not any effort to improve the system. The point here is to end the inconvenient criminal consequences of dope smoking.

At last! TFlathers rescues us. I would note, however, that the same illogic applies to the 22 yoa defendant who has sex with one girl the day before her fourteenth birthday and another the day after.

How about this for a reason to vigorously prosecute drug crime: 1) Enrique Camarena was a husband, son, father, marine, police officer, firefighter and ultimately a DEA agent assigned to the Guadalajara office. His undercover work was legendary. In 1985, KiKi Camarena was kidnapped, tortured and murdered by smugglers who mainly dealt in marijuana. Find out more about this exceptional man at http://s88449596.onlinehome.us/john/kiki.htm

2) It is well accepted that a substantial portion of drug money makes its way into the coffers of Latin American and world-wide terrorists. Can't anyone think of other arguments we can use when this bill comes up? Name-calling and posturing about our toughness is not going to be effective and the session is upon us.

OK, Tim, good to hear your point. However, we've been dealing with the drug users/sellers for years and years, and no end is in sight. Historically, we have reprioritized our criminal penalties, without saying we want 'endorse' criminal conduct. An example is Burglary of a Building vs. Habitation (the 'lesser', and I really hesitate to use that word and go down that slippery slope, is a SJF, previously a higher degree felony). Another example, Burglary of a Vehicle vs. Burglary of a Habitation/Building (the lesser being a Class A Misdemeanor, previously a Felony).

No one is saying they are promoting Marijuana, we are just redirecting resources in a system that has its resources maxed out. Instead of our usual 'posting from the comfort of our desks, no involvement in legislation' stance, lets contact our legislators. How about promoting a punishment scheme like 1st time class C with fine, 2nd time class C, max fine, must attend drug education (like drivers ed/safety class), third time, seeing that you just aren't getting it, class B misdemeanor punishment range, with NO deferred adjudication available.

I accept that the line between what's a crime and what's not, or what warrants a higher level offense, often looks arbitrary. But to me the kind of scheme this bill sets up creates more of a qualitative than a quantitative difference. I just have a hard time wrapping my mind around the fact that 1 oz. is A-OK, but 4.1 oz. and you're a felon. If it's not a message of outright approval to the user, it's at least a nod-and-a-wink that's a whole lot different from reducing the minimum prison time for a drug like cocaine. Doesn't it make it harder to prosecute that felony-level dealer when the people he's selling to are basically not breaking the law by having his product? I'm no advocate for drug legalization, but if we're ready to say that there's essentially nothing wrong with pot smoking, then make marijuna legal. I don't see how a weird half-step like this bill helps anything.

Beck's solution for the habitual pot possessor will fail because class C's are handled in JP courts, where the standards of the pleas, and reporting of convictions are notoriously lax. Unless the crime involves a traffic violation, which is reported to DPS in a standarized way and involves a D/L record, there will be almost no way of proving the ID of most people convicted in JP court, and therefore, no way of enhancing such a crook into a court of record. Moreover, such a scheme would create even more work for prosecutors and JP court clerks--the very thing the author of the bill claims to be concerned about.

POM is a crime because it is bad for the individual, and it is destructive to society. Marijuana, unlike alcohol, has a culiminative effect. For example, if you drink 1 beer a day for a year, you are not the worse for it. But if you smoke one joint a day for a year, for many, many years you will still retain THC in your body fat. Over time, marijuana adversly effects the brain.

I once worked on the survey crew of a geophyical party, which included several pot heads. A pot head could store enough marijuana in his hat band to keep him high all day long, and when a few of these fellows were high on mj, our productivity took a real dive.

I think it is obvious that marijuana is more destructive than possessing a few pills of the precription drugs that are included in Penalty Group 4 drugs. Possession of less than an oz. of those drugs is a Class B misd. Are we going to make those Class C's too?

I have not worked in an office that handles misdemeanors for a number of years. But when I did work misdemeanors in Ft. Bend County, Class B POM was not an over whelming problem for us. I am curious if the misdemeanor prosecutors out there consider Class B POM cases to be a big head ache, or are they just a part of the mix of cases, which tend to quickly plead out? In other words, is this a solution in search of a problem?

I am the last person to claim that I am the toughest pot prosecutor out there. We typically handle first-time, use amount POM cases almost as if they were Class C: deferred adjudication and a fine usually $500 or less. But that still leaves us the option of going higher, depending on the circumstances, especially in cases where we end up with a repeat offender. Why change the law to provide for a graduating scale of punishment, when prosecutors can accomplish essentially the same thing now without the restrictions?

By reducing POM to a Class C, you're setting as a policy that under no circumstances would any POM case under a certain amount justify more than a fine. I'm not saying that I think 180 days jail minimum is the right approach, I'm just saying that we should look at it as you would look at any market decision...reducing the price will increase the use, not decrease it. If you are trying to combat a drain on the system from pot users, then why not try to reduce the number of pot users instead of making it easier for people to use pot?

I agree with the Hon. John. I'm tired of people giving me bogus arguments for whittling away at the ability of prosecutors to prosecute a crime. If you want it to be legal, then make it legal, don't just make it impossible for law enforcement to enforce the law. Same thing for the death penalty. I personally favor it in some cases, but if the majority of people out there think we shouldn't have it, then I'll accept that. But why can't they just say "Abolish it!" instead of "Let's keep it, but make sure that anybody who commits a capital crime in either ineligible for it or unlikely to ever actually get it."

I just want the argument to be what it's really about, which is not the burden on the judicial system, but on whether or not our society has reached the point where we no longer consider marihuana to be any worse than alcohol or cigarettes.

POMs aren't clogging our misdemeanor dockets, although they are quite common. But as has been stated already, that's hardly a justification for turning a blind eye to the problem.

MJ IS damaging to the individual and to society. And while a single joint may not be so destructive, I have found that MJ usage is often the fist step a person takes on the ladder to stronger and stronger drugs. Many MJ users either build up a tolerance or want to experience the next rung on that ladder. Most serious users of the heavier drugs will tell you that they started out smoking a little weed here and there.

For this reason and all the valiud reasons above I think reducing POM <1 oz. to a Class C sends the exactly the wrong message.

quote:

---

Apparently, our sense of personal responsibility does not include minor violations of law.

---

AKA the "Sin ain't sin if good people do it" theory, one of those unwritten laws that we run up against all the time.

Concerns regarding 0.9 oz and 1.1 oz are moot. The quantity ladder is established throughout substance criminalization. A bringht line at round numbers is a functioning concept within the current law. Questioning it at this point is somewhat silly.

Drug education courses can be required on Class C tickets. (See MIP/tobacco classes as an example.)

Multiple violations of the proposed class C amounts could be used to enhance the subsequent offense to higher level misdemeanors. (See Minor Driving Under the Influence.)

John: I don't think that Marajuana should be legal. I do think there should be a logical difference between a couple of joints and two freezer bags. I explained this earlier; I think my explanation makes sense. I am not advocating the decriminalization of any substances.

Mara-joo-wana's bad, mmkay?

What I do NOT understand is the differentiation of Marajuana and other controlled substances. Why isn't Tetrahydroxycannibol (Is that right?) scheduled the same way psilocin is scheduled? How about psilocybin?

What makes pot the one substance that has to have its own little number in the health and safety code? We have 5 schedules and 4 penalty groups for crap. Why do we have 481.121? That's just dumb. Streamline the code, schedule THC as a substance that should be controlled. It has some limited medicinal value so put it in the proper schedule and be done with all this talk.

Either the schedules work or they don't. Why mess around with 481.121 at all? If the schedules can be used as they are designed to be, AND those decisions are fair and reasonable regarding the scheduling of substances, why the hell should we tweak around with 'extra laws' when the ones we have are just fine?

The general consensus around here is that IF the tokers would do it in the privacy of their own homes, the majority of them would more than likely NOT even be coming before us at all.
The main problem is that most of these "duuudes" and "duuudets" are busted while riding around - officers detect the strong odor of what they know from experience to be burnt Mj. Since they are out on the highways and byways, it's no longer just a choice they make that only has ramifications for themselves. Now others are put in harms way (No need to mention that since they are usually being stopped for some sort of traffic violation when the officer detects the odor, easy to argue that they may not be doing their best driving).
IF its going to be seriously considered, then make it so long as not found in a car and only one bite at the Class C - after that, it's enhanceable.

Anyone intoxicated by marijauna and operating a motor vehicle would be subject to the same criminal liability as one intoxicated by any other substance.