A Change In Marijuana Prosecution Eyed (Chicago Considers Bid To Issue Fines In Certain Cases)

Boston Globe ^ | Sept. 26, 2004

[Wolfie]

A CHANGE IN MARIJUANA PROSECUTION EYED

Chicago Considers Bid To Issue Fines In Certain Cases

CHICAGO -- Mayor Richard M. Daley has endorsed a proposal to issue fines for possession of small amounts of marijuana rather than clog the courts with cases that tend to be thrown out by judges.

Daley said the volume of marijuana cases that are tossed out by local courts -- upwards of 90 percent, according to one recent study -- mean minor possession is virtually decriminalized in Chicago now. "If 99 percent of the cases are thrown out, when is there a credible arrest for marijuana?" Daley said last week. "They throw all the cases out. It doesn't mean anything."

Much of the national debate on decriminalizing marijuana has focused on its medicinal use. But Bruce Mirken, a spokesman for the Marijuana Policy Project based in Washington, D.C., said a growing number of cities and states are developing alternatives to prosecuting minor marijuana busts to unclog jammed court systems and free officers to focus on more serious crimes. "There's a growing sense among people who just look at the hard-nosed practicality of the situation that this is not a sensible use of police and criminal justice system time and resources," he said. Mirken said his group has tracked at least 11 states -- California, Colorado, Maine, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, and Oregon -- that have fashioned laws relaxing criminal penalities in minor marijuana cases.

In many cases, police are now allowed to issue citations instead of making arrests.

[tbird5]

Good.

[robertpaulsen]

"and free officers to focus on more serious crimes."

They already are focused on more serious crimes. That's how they're making these marijuana arrests.

Does anybody with two neurons to rub together believe that the Chicago Police Department (or any other police department) is rabidly going after marijuana users in order to bust them for possessing 1/2 ounce of marijuana?

Get real.

[Kornev]

Yeah, Chicago and the Daley machine is really what we need to emulate.

[tbird5]

"free officers to focus on more serious crimes"....like people who smoke.

[robertpaulsen]

"... since Mirken contends there are no studies indicating a definitive link between tough laws and lower marijuana usage."

BWAHAHAHAHA! Not when you're throwing out 99% of the arrests!

Give these dopers a mandatory 60 days in the hoosegow, then see if there's a lowering of marijuana usage.

[ikka]

Daley said the volume of marijuana cases that are tossed out by local courts -- upwards of 90 percent, according to one recent study -- mean minor possession is virtually decriminalized in Chicago now. "If 99 percent of the cases are thrown out, when is there a credible arrest for marijuana?" Daley said last week. "They throw all the cases out. It doesn't mean anything."

Once money for the govt and money for court costs is involved, expect these numbers to do a 180 - 90 per cent will be upheld.

[SteveMcKing]

Chicago can do that. Chicago must also bow down to federal drug laws, or else get the smacking they deserve.

[Wolfie]

ping

[eno_]

Give these dopers a mandatory 60 days in the hoosegow, then see if there's a lowering of marijuana usage.

Is there any benefit that would come of the government imprisoning people on a massive scale when no property or person has been violated?

[eno_]

Chicago must also bow down to federal drug laws, or else get the smacking they deserve.

I'm sure you can point to where in the Constitution, chapter and verse, the fedgov is authorized to do that. I guess pot smoke crosses state lines and that's commerce?

[SteveMcKing]

Meh. Details..... (I fancy myself a culture warrior, not a Constitutionalist.)

[fod]

I fancy myself a culture warrior, not a Constitutionalist

humpf

there are a alot of liberals out there that think like that...

[robertpaulsen]

One benefit would be to keep idiots like Bruce Mirken from spouting off about no "definitive link between tough laws and lower marijuana usage". What good is a "tough law" if the case is thrown out?

And if Da Mayor instructs the Chicago Police Department not to enforce the marijuana laws, then the City of Chicago certainly doesn't need those federal drug funds, now do they?

[robertpaulsen]

"I'm sure you can point to where in the Constitution, chapter and verse, the fedgov is authorized to do that."

I can.

Article VI, Clause 2. Supremacy Clause.

"This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."

If federal law conflicts with state law, the federal law prevails.

[TKDietz]

"One benefit would be to keep idiots like Bruce Mirken from spouting off about no "definitive link between tough laws and lower marijuana usage". What good is a "tough law" if the case is thrown out?

And if Da Mayor instructs the Chicago Police Department not to enforce the marijuana laws, then the City of Chicago certainly doesn't need those federal drug funds, now do they?"

I just love the way the feds work. They confiscate our money through taxation and then dole it out to our local governments who do what they want while denying funds to those who don't play along.

As for tough laws, the fact is that regardless of how tough the laws are local governments do not have the resources and the people do not have the stomach to enforce these laws to the maximum extent. There are few places where first offenders caught possessing small amounts of marijuana are given jail time. For that matter, people with relatively clean records are rarely given jail time for possessing small amounts of hard drugs. The majority don't want that to happen and we couldn't afford such a policy if we did adopt it. Our jails and prisons are far too overcrowded as it is. Prisons in my state are having to let people go before their parole eligibility dates because of overcrowding and they've just expanded that program to start letting people out even earlier. Our local jail is packed at double capacity and the county has recently been told by the powers that be that the jail population will be brought down to acceptable levels or the jail will be shut down. How could we lock up every person caught with a small amount of pot? We don't have a 90% dismissal rate. What we have is probably closer to a 95% conviction rate and my guess is that the conviction rates are probably closer to ours in most parts of the country. I'm shocked to hear that any place would have a 90% dismissal rate unless the dismissals are done as part of a diversion program where dismissal is conditioned on a defendant cooperating with some sort of a drug offender program.

[eno_]

Only if such a law ia authorized by the Constitution.

Is an unconstitutional law any law at all?

And, for extra credit, do you think federal LEOs are constitutionally authorized to roam wherever they please?

[robertpaulsen]

"Only if such a law ia authorized by the Constitution."

And this one is, so say the federal courts in which it was challenged.

"Is an unconstitutional law any law at all?

Nope

" And, for extra credit, do you think federal LEOs are constitutionally authorized to roam wherever they please?"

Yep. But in some cases they need a warrant.

[Ken H]

(I fancy myself a culture warrior, not a Constitutionalist.)

FYI--

Constitution for the United States of America

It's a relatively short document and worth taking the time to read.

[eno_]

Really? You believe federal LEOs can go anywhere and make arrests and siezures without state authorization? Interesting opinion for a "conservative."

You can find that one in the Constitution too, eh? Is there really no reason for Customs houses to be federal reservations?