Last Friday, I read that a bill to reduce the basic marijuana possession charge to an infraction had just passed out of committee in the California Senate. This isn't a major change -- already in California, you can't be jailed for possession of less than ounce; you can only be cited. But it's still classified as a misdemeanor. The new law, if it were to pass, puts a first offense on par with a traffic ticket.

Of course, one effect of this would be that people charged with the offense would no longer be entitled to jury trials or public defenders. I think that's the real issue, saving the state money.

What do you think? Should simple pot possession be a crime at all? Is an infraction about the right level of punishment? Are you in favor of total legalization? What about medical use? And is your stance on this, pro or con, limited to marijuana, or do you extend it to other drugs, as well? (Are there drugs that are legal that you think should not be available?)

-- Anonymous, May 14, 2001

Answers

I have never used drugs and never intend to, but I'm still in favor of making pot legal. All that pot smokers do is sleep and eat and watch t.v. - none of this is harmful. Pot never killed anyone, although it clearly impairs one's musical taste - but there's no crime there, so long as Phish stay dis-united. I ask only that there be pot smoking and non-pot smoking sections at concerts, because I honestly can't stand the smell. Past that, toke up America.

That we've criminalized an addiction, as far as the harder drugs are concerned, is beyond stupidity. Of course, the reality is that we're probably making money as a country hand over fist via the illegal drug trade, thus allowing us to throw more money at in a token gesture called 'the drug war'.

I believe that in Britain, heroin addicts may go to the pharmacist and pick up a prescription for clean, pharmaceutical quality dope. This allows them to function on a daily basis without having to risk the dangers inherent to copping in the street. I have no problem with this. Addicted people have a medical problem, yes, but by and large they aren't oblivious to this fact - so if they want to be junkies, let them. But let's at least not allow them to put themselves and others in constant danger of illness and injury.

-- Anonymous, May 14, 2001

We're way past due for legalizing marijuana - it is no more dangerous than alcohol in terms of impairment or tobacco in terms of lung damage, and while we do have regulations in effect for behavior during use for each of these, they are legal. Pot only becomes life threatening if you drive while under the influence - but so does over the counter cough syrup.

I'm more torn over more dangerous drugs but overall I believe it's more effective to strongly enforce penalties for behavior while using potentially dangerous items (be it chemicals, guns, or whatever) rather than banning the item itself.

I saw in the Post that the Surpreme Court just unanimously agreed that patients have no right to use pot for medicinal purposes, which really bothers me.

-- Anonymous, May 14, 2001

The idea of not being able to request a jury trial is a little creepy to me, but I don't think I quite grasp the idea of infraction vs. midemeanor.

I'm with Gabby. Never done drugs, but I know the so-called "war on drugs" is a failure. Well, it's a failure if you think it's purpose was to end drug use. It's somewhat succesful if you buy into the theory that it's an attempt to warehouse surplus populations in prisons. It's obviously effected the poor more than the rich, even more than most laws. Not only can rich folks afford lawyers to defend them, but we also don't have SWAT teams randomly raiding neighborhoods in Saddle River or Grosse Pointe the way they randomly raid projects in some cities, busting people for whatever they find.

-- Anonymous, May 14, 2001

Dave: an infraction isn't considered a criminal offense. There's no jail time, fines have to be within a certain range (I don't know offhand what the max is), and so it doesn't fall under the constitutional requirement of trial by jury or right to counsel. Just like you aren't entitled to a jury or a lawyer for a speeding ticket. If this law were to pass, it would bump pot possession down to that class of offense.

Pot possession is an anomaly now in California -- it's punished like an infraction, meaning you just get a citation and pay a fine, but it's still classed as a criminal offense. You have a misdeanor on your record.

-- Anonymous, May 14, 2001

The war on drugs is a flop, but I don't really see any other country handling it any better.

The British heroin program Gabby alludes to has been all but discontinued--fewer than 2% of heroin addicts in Britain now participate. Most doctors there are no longer willing to write prescriptions for addicts because the program hasn't succeeded in its mission--addicts who get pharmaceutical heroin still supplement it with street stuff and are just as likely to be unemployed and involved in crime as addicts who buy only on the street.

Of course, heroin is an addictive drug and marijuana isn't, which is a big difference. But I still think pot smoking is a drain on society. Pot smoking causes lung cancer and other respiratory problems. It weakens your immune system. It causes people to get in car accidents and makes them more forgetful.

I think we'd all be better off if alcohol, cigarettes and marijuana had never been discovered. I do think that legalization will increase the popularity of marijuana, but it's probably a reasonable tradeoff both for bureaucratic reasons and also for the social benefit of sparing pot users from becoming a part of the criminal justice system.

It would be great if everyone could have such fulfilling lives that they wouldn't feel the need to use drugs, but obviously, that's not a viable solution.

-- Anonymous, May 14, 2001

One option would be to de-criminalize possession and sale to adults and of marijuana intra-borders, but retain the criminal sanctions for smuggling and sales to minors. A first step toward de-criminalization would allow the DEA to continue destroying marijuana plantations and interdicting shipments, but impose only civil penalites such as forfeiture on persons trafficking in marijuana. That would be a sop to the tough-on-crime lobby, and it would let us consider the results of lossening the marijuana supply. If a giant crime wave did not result, there would be less resistance to the next step toward legalization.

-- Anonymous, May 14, 2001

I'd just like to say that I think smoking pot makes me a more productive citizen, because since I stopped smoking pot I relieve stress by digging holes in the ground and engaging in flamewars, and really, smoking pot was a lot easier on the rest of the world. If I were to give up all of these things I'd just be a big stressed-out maniac all the time, and nobody wants to see that.

-- Anonymous, May 14, 2001

The whole "drain on society" thing just doesn't hold water, in my opinion. The constitution grants us (well, y'all) the pursuit of happiness. Pretty much any leisure time activity is a drain on society.

For example, take baseball. Talk about a drain on society. When will the madness end? People generally travel to play or watch, resulting in environmental damage. People often take time off work, resulting in lost productivity for our great nation, opening the door for the communists to get ahead. And then there's the burden on our health care system. While playing baseball, injuries are not uncommon. Heck, you can even die from playing baseball. (Like this guy did.)

Perhaps it is time to criminalize baseball and end this drain on society once and for all.

-- Anonymous, May 14, 2001

Dave, if 50% of all baseball fans were unable to maintain employment due to their baseball habit (as is the case with heroin users) I'd be all for outlawing baseball, too.

-- Anonymous, May 14, 2001

Ok, I'm shocked - you mean a full 50% of heroin users actually manage to hold down a job??

-- Anonymous, May 14, 2001

Yeah, I didn't know there were that many job openings for supermodels and rockstars.

-- Anonymous, May 14, 2001

This explains the slow lines at the McDonalds next to the subway downstairs.

-- Anonymous, May 14, 2001

The employment rates in studies I've seen have been about 50-60%, but that includes part-time employment. Once you're addicted to heroin, you're pretty functional unless you don't have drug in your system.

-- Anonymous, May 14, 2001

Jen, the line I quoted that from said, "But I still think pot smoking is a drain on society." I was speaking in that context.

They wised up on alcohol. They wised up on Vietnam. Now it is high time they wised up when it comes to marijuana.

War
What is it good for
Absolutely nothing
Say it again
War
What is it good for
Absolutely nothing

-- Anonymous, May 14, 2001

Dave, I guess I was confused, because in that post you were replying to, I stated that I was in favor of decriminalization of pot. I just wish that people would choose not to smoke it.

And as for Cory, I don't think it's appropriate to compare alcohol prohibition with heroin prohibition. Alcohol prohibition failed due to a lack of popular support for the law and thus a lack of compliance with the law. Then, as now, there was a popular conception that a little drink once in a while isn't really such a bad thing. Heroin use does not have the same popular perception.

-- Anonymous, May 14, 2001

I'll concede the point about popular usage, but I think a distinction must still be made between criminalizing the user verses criminalizing the sale. Jailing the user simply for heroin use is not appropriate. (and I'm still up in the air about controlled delivery possibly being a good idea --as opposed to the usual street delivery)

-- Anonymous, May 14, 2001

I think marijuana should be legal and controlled the same way cigarettes and alcohol are ... no sales to minors (theoretically anyway) and laws to prevent or punish dangerous activities undertaken while impaired. (I'm really not for 'sin taxes,' although they seem to be acceptable to many people.)

Prohibition is an expensive undertaking that only serves to drive the substance underground, inflate the price, increase the risk of dangerous impurities and make criminals out of otherwise law abiding folks. Some substances should be illegal or controlled, but the cost of making them so is so high (both in money and in other considerations) that it should be reserved for things are truly harmful.

And even then, I think people who use the substances, like alcoholics, have a disease and need to be treated. The people who should be charged with crimes and imprisoned are those who prey on the addiction by supplying the stuff.

-- Anonymous, May 14, 2001

Jen, I can see how what I said could be taken as support for the legalization of heroin. I should have been more precise as that was not my intent. Although I am a staunch civil libertarian I do believe there is a point where we must protect people from making extremely poor choices for themselves. The high incidence of addiction among people who try heroin coupled with the high personal cost of that addiction indicate its continued ban (or at least very tight control) is warranted, IMHO.

-- Anonymous, May 14, 2001

You all might be interested in reading this, which I posted earlier today, before encountering this thread.

-- Anonymous, May 15, 2001

Legalize it.

-- Anonymous, May 15, 2001

I like a woman who can get to the point. Very good, Lizzie.

-- Anonymous, May 15, 2001