Marijuana.com

Lit_Match

Editorial: Marijuana bill headed in wrong direction
02-17-08|Burlington Free Press|Editorial

Vermont senators got it backward when the upper house passed a bill that reduces the penalty for possessing small amounts of marijuana and ordered a study to see if the state's drug laws are working. It makes little sense to change a law without knowing the effectiveness of current laws.

The bill the Senate passed 22-7 Wednesday would send those caught with an ounce or less of marijuana to court diversion and offer them a chance to keep their records clean.

The Senate bill steps back from the original proposal, which called for decriminalizing the possession of up to 4 ounces of marijuana. Reducing penalties for pot possession was to allow law enforcement to focus its resources on more serious crimes and take pressure off our clogged court and prison systems.

Numerous police and prosecutors refuted that rationale, testifying that small-time possession was not causing problems for the courts or prisons. Many such cases are already sent to court diversion at the prosecutor's discretion. The bill would remove the prosecutor's ability to consider the entire situation involved in the possession charge before deciding on a course of action.

As Lt. Gov. Brian Dubie says, the bill proposes to solve a nonexistent problem. We do that quite a bit in this state: focus on problems that don't exist instead of ones that do.

That should have been enough to table the plan, especially in light of the fact that the bill the Senate passed makes clear that lawmakers lack sufficient information about the state of our drug laws, but there's more.

As we work to eliminate tobacco and reduce the harm of alcohol in our lives, you can make a case that reducing penalties for pot possession also sends the wrong message, especially to teens who face the challenges of the drug culture. Our teens already struggle with legal vices. Making marijuana more easily available -- and reducing the penalty for possession will do just that -- would only make the situation worse.

Debby Haskins, executive director of the Association of Student Assistance Professionals of Vermont, said a teen possessing an ounce of marijuana -- enough for about 30 joints and worth about $300 -- would signal that person is either a dealer or has a drug problem. Haskins reports that marijuana use is the No. 1 reason youths under 18 enter substance-abuse treatment.

A critical element missing here is context. There's something wrong with rushing to change the punishment for small-time pot possession without looking at the entire drug picture in Vermont, including how policy discussions in Montpelier might affect attitudes in our schools.

Another element missing from the discussion is honesty. If the aim of the bill is a move toward making marijuana a legal recreational drug, then supporters need the guts to say so, so the issue can be debated on its real merits.

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

 

Buzzby

"We" are not working to "eliminate" tobacco. A collective effort has been made to educate the public about the dangers of tobacco and, as a result, the use of this substance has been substantially reduced in our society. Similarly, a collective effort has been made to educate the public about the dangers of alcohol.

Does anyone see a major difference between the way these drugs have been handled and the way marijuana has been handled? No one is subject to criminal or civil penalties for the possession of a pack of smokes or a six-pack unless they're a minor. This "sends the message" that tobacco and alcohol are not appropriate for minors. A similar marijuana law would have the same effect.

This makes an assumption that has not proven to be true in other, similar situations. Penalties - or the lack thereof - have had no effect on the availability of marijuana. Marijuana could hardly be more available than it is now when its distribution is handled by black marketeers who will sell anything to anyone. 87% of high school seniors say that it's easier to get marijuana than beer or cigarettes. Why? Because beer and cigarettes are sold by licensed dealers who card any customers who appear to be underage.

Or he's a smart shopper who knows you get a better price when you buy the "big box". Or he's savvy enough to know that the fewer deals you have to make, the less risk you're taking. Or he's got an oz of schwag that cost $75.

Haskins didn't bother to report that the vast majority of these young people are in "treatment" only because it was a better alternative to getting a criminal record and spending some time in jail.

And, of course, the straw-man argument. The bill isn't a "move toward making marijuana a legal recreational drug". The bill is what it is: an effort to reduce the penalties for a victimless crime which 72% of voters surveyed believe warrants no more than a fine.

__________________