County Leaders Want Lighter Marijuana Penalties

San Mateo County Times (CA) ^ | 17 Jun 2005 | Jason Dearen

[Know your rights]

San Mateo County's top law enforcement and government officials are backing a new state bill that would make the penalty for possessing less than an ounce of marijuana the legal equivalent of a traffic ticket.

And on the surface, the little-known measure, Senate Bill 797, seems to be a mostly positive development for marijuana advocates in the face of recent setbacks in the U.S. Supreme Court and Congress. The bill would reduce possession of less than an ounce to an infraction but would raise the maximum fine from $100 to $250.

Under current California law, people caught with less than an ounce of pot are charged with a misdemeanor, and if they choose to fight it, they can take their case in front of a jury, even though the maximum possible penalty is only a $100 fine.

Judges and others in law enforcement say the courts have been clogged with these cases for years, costing taxpayers tens of millions of unnecessary dollars in court-appointed attorneys and other trial-related costs.

"It makes no sense for the law tocharacterize such offense a misdemeanor, requiring judges to appoint attorneys and impanel and use the time of ordinary citizens as jurors and then, upon conviction, impose a mere $100 sanction," said San Mateo County Superior Court Judge Quentin Kopp, who has been working behind the scenes for years to make this change to the law.

But the bill's detractors complain that SB 797, sponsored by Senate Majority Leader Gloria Romero, D-Los Angeles, does not require that all marijuana-possession cases be reduced to an infraction. The proposed law still allows prosecutors the option of charging the crime as a misdemeanor.

That, coupled with the raising of the maximum fine from $100 to $250, has some of the state's marijuana legal reform activists rankled.

"Cal NORML supports making marijuana an infraction, since that would protect defendants from a criminal record, even though it also deprives them of the right to a criminal trial," wrote the local chapter of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws ( NORML ) on its Web site. "Cal NORML is opposing SB 797 in its present form, because it is too heavily weighted toward penalty increases for marijuana."

San Mateo County District Attorney Jim Fox ardently disagrees with NORML's stance and said the misdemeanor option will never be used because prosecutors have no incentive to bring these cases to trial.

"We need to call the offense what it is, an infraction. There is no way that prosecutors are going to be charging offenders with a misdemeanor when there is no possibility of jail time. Why should ( taxpayers ) have to pay for court-appointed lawyers when its no different than a traffic ticket?" Fox said.

Joining Kopp and Fox in support of SB 797 are San Mateo County's supervisors, who unanimously endorsed the proposed legislation.

[mtbopfuyn]

Only in CA.

[SittinYonder]

The bill would reduce possession of less than an ounce to an infraction but would raise the maximum fine from $100 to $250.

More proof that the WOD is just about the money.

[sharktrager]

Lighter and marijuana...that made me laugh.

Damned If I Know

[Huck]

but then those damn hippies would get to toke their weed

Can't have that.

[gdani]

Only in CA

Actually, Ohio (and I'm sure other states) has had a similar law for years. And yet, life goes on.

[eyespysomething]

You'd think they'd at least try not to be so blatant about it.

Oh wait a minute, so many people are on the "marijuana is eeeeeeee-vil and makes you rape the white women" and "people who smoke marijuana should be locked up forever, if not executed" that they could admit to just about anything in the WOD and people would say "but it's for the children".

[rahbert]

Always wondered what happened to QK... Used to listen
to his talk show on KGO 810. He was their "tokin" conservative.

[Cathryn Crawford]

No, not only in CA. The law looks as though it's going to change to similar terms in TX in the fall.

[dirtboy]

Only in CA.

Nope. This is basically the way the law is already in Colorado. And it makes a heck of a lot more sense than what most states are doing now (and what the feds want done).

[refermech]

I think you've got that just about right. I see alchohol as
being much more dangerous and we encourage its consumption, even glamorize it.

[SittinYonder]

Imagine what would happen if the Drug War lost it's main crop. They'd lose billions of dollars in fines, government funding, and thousands of narks would need to get new jobs.

Not just the money lost in fines, but the seizures of private property. And as for the lost jobs, put them on the borders.

I've got a good friend who works for border patrol in Arizona and he spends all his time investigating drug trafficking.

[TKDietz]

I don't know why people would find this objectionable. This would bring the counties and municipalities more money for fines, and save the state a lot of money on trials. I've heard that a lot of young lawyers take these cases to jury trial in California to get jury trial experience since the most their clients could lose is $100 and they would have to pay that if they plead guilty anyway. I wish I could have tried a few cases like these for jury trial experience when I first started out practicing law. My clients always faced the possibility of prison time in taking their cases before a jury. Most states don't have jury trials for misdemeanors, especially if jail isn't a possibility.

I'm in a state where people sometimes go to prison sometimes for possession of just a joint or two if it's not their first offense. I've had clients from states like California who were caught with pot when they were driving through and they are just blown away about how these cases are handled here. They may have just paid a small fine before in California but they were also convicted of a misdemeanor so it's going to be a felony here. They could go to prison for it. We got an email from the prosecutor just the other where he made a prison offer on a marijuana second offense charge. The guy just had a couple of joints but the prosecutor said he didn't like the guy's attitude so he couldn't have drug court. He was upset because the kid told the officer when he was arrested that he didn't think there was anything wrong with marijuana and that it ought to be legal. Oh well, at least things aren't as bad here as they are the next county over where the prosecutors always try to put people in trouble for a second offense of simple marijuana possession in prison.

Does all of this help reduce marijuana use? I don't think so. SAMSHA just put out a report where they broke down marijuana use by cities and smaller geographic regions and marijuana use in the area I live is higher than average and higher than it is some places like Ohio where simple possession is nothing more than a civil violation that doesn't end up on your criminal record.

[Know your rights]

the prosecutor said he didn't like the guy's attitude so he couldn't have drug court. He was upset because the kid told the officer when he was arrested that he didn't think there was anything wrong with marijuana and that it ought to be legal.

Ungroupthink is doubleplusungood.

[Brad’s Gramma]

Silly person.