Marijuana.com

Lit_Match

DA Candidate Sennett Takes Heat Over Marijuana
10-17-07|Daily Freeman|By Hugh Reynolds

Does Jonathan Sennett, the Democratic candidate for Ulster County district attorney, support the legalization of marijuana? It's not quite clear, but his two opponents don't.

Sennett, an assistant Ulster County public defender, said during a Freeman interview that he favors "the further decriminalization" of the drug, but he fell short of advocating its "legalization" as he apparently had on at least two other occasions.

His opponents, Republican Holley Carnright of Saugerties and Conservative/Independent Vincent Bradley Jr. of Kingston, say they heard Sennett, a New Paltz attorney, call for legalization twice - in September on a Woodstock public-access TV interview, and again on Oct. 3 at a joint appearance before the Ulster County Police Chiefs Association at the Ulster County Law Enforcement Center. Bradley was not present at the Woodstock interview with Carnright and Sennett.

"Did he use the word 'legalization' (before the Police Chiefs Association)? Absolutely," said town of Ulster Police Chief Paul Watzka, who, using the Woodstock TV interview as context, posed the question to Sennett at the police chiefs' "meet the candidates" session.

Watzka said he did not query Carnright or Bradley on the subject "because I knew how they stood." Bradley and Carnright were quick to inform the police chiefs they did not favor legalization of the drug.

Possession of small amounts of marijuana for personal use is now a violation, which Bradley called "the lowest form of crime," and subject to no more than a $100 fine.

"I don't understand what (Sennett) means by 'decriminalization.' You can't get less than a violation. It's equivalent to an appearance ticket for jaywalking," said Bradley, a former Manhattan assistant district attorney.

"He can dance all around it and blow smoke, but I think his message is clear, intended or not, that he doesn't think marijuana is any worse than tobacco. It is totally inappropriate for a DA to say that," said Carnright, a former chief assistant district attorney for Ulster County. "I think it's a bad idea. You can't be the DA and send out that kind of message. The message, especially to kids, is (marijuana) is bad for you. Any other message is inappropriate."

Sennett, in a Freeman interview, compared the health risks of tobacco and alcohol abuse to those connected with marijuana. "The scientific evidence is pretty solid that marijuana is not more harmful than alcohol or tobacco," he said.

Sennett, a former assistant district attorney in the Bronx, also observed that the alcohol and tobacco industries have extensive lobbies in Washington and Albany to protect their interests while marijuana does not.

"I don't believe that a substance should be determined to be legal or illegal in inverse proportion to its lobbying effort. We don't prosecute people as felons for selling alcohol to kids," Sennett said.

Sennett said it is up to the state Legislature to amend laws regarding marijuana and that he would enforce whatever laws are on the books.

Watzka questioned that statement. "How could a district attorney who supports legalization of marijuana prosecute a case involving marijuana?" he said.

Kingston Mayor James Sottile, a Bradley supporter, called the legalization of marijuana "a bad idea."

"Here we have a candidate who says we have lost the war on drugs and gangs (which Sennett denies), and who wants to make marijuana legal," he said. "We're trying to take drug dealers off the street. Making it legal would only makes things worse."

__________________
Donation links to NORML (The National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws) | MPP (Marijuana Policy Project)

 

ITG

I love this article... it displays a lot of different views on mj, and shows us a bit of the challenges a pro-legalization candidate faces. Especially because a lot of their arguments against marijuana are fallacious at best (like, wouldn't legalization pretty much take EVERY dealer off the street?).

I think Sennet's hit the nail on the head, in recognizing both the actual health impact of mj and the difficulties that its lobbyists face. I also don't like how his opponent, Carnright, says that any message from the DA's office that deals with pot should be "It's bad." In my mind, part if the DA's job (and indeed anyone working in the justice system) should be working for what he believes is actually just. Suppose instead he was a candidate in the South during the civil rights movement and supported equal rights and desegregation. Should he have been written off, labelled incompetent to do his job because he disagreed with a law, even though he swore to uphold it anyway and work through the proper channels (he probably WOULD'VE been, but that doesn't mean he SHOULD'VE been)? And isn't the message, especially to kids, that smoking cigarettes is also bad for you?

Sounds like the Sennet guy has a good head on his shoulders. though, and at least this does help get more serious mainstream attention on the issue...

__________________

It matters not how strait the gate, How charged with punishments the scroll,
I am the master of my fate; I am the captain of my soul.

dk15

Funny, making it legal would do just that.

Buzzby

Is this Fox News? It sounds like their kind of "fair and unbiased" reporting.

This is out of context, as is clearly shown here:Sennett was not speaking in general about marijuana, but only about its effects on health. In that limited context, his statement is certainly true. Other than a chance of bronchitis, marijuana has no adverse effects on health.

You should never tell kids the truth! They might act on it!

We tell kids that cigarettes and alcohol are bad for you, and that campaign has seriously reduced the percentage of people who get hooked on cigarettes. It doesn't seem to have worked with alcohol.

It certainly hasn't worked with marijuana. Any kid who bothers to look around will see that all of the scare tactics are lies. As I see it, marijuana has only two dangers. The first and far more serious one is that it's illegal and you can get involved with the criminal justice system. The second is that you can get over-involved with it to the exclusion of much more important aspects of life.

How could anyone argue with that?

It's called "doing your job". Laws are very specific about what is and what is not a crime. All he has to do is enforce the laws as written.

Legalizing marijuana would take marijuana dealers off the streets. That would allow the police to spend their time pursuing dealers of truly dangerous drugs and perpetrators of violent crimes and crimes against property. It would also eliminate the one way in which marijuana is a "gateway drug": it's sold by the same people who are happy to sell kids physically addictive and potentially lethal drugs.

Almost 90% of high school seniors say that it is easier to get weed than it is to get beer or cigarettes. That's because drug dealers don't card and retailer of tobacco and alcohol do. Putting marijuana into the same kind of controlled distribution system could only make it less available to kids.

__________________