Schwarzenegger Signs Bill Reducing Marijuana Penalties

By Jeralyn, Section Legislation
Posted on Fri Oct 01, 2010 at 09:35:12 AM EST
Tags: marijuana reform (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has signed a bill into law that reduces the offense of possession of up to one ounce of marijuana from a misdemeanor to an infraction, like a traffic ticket. The penalty has not changed -- both the misdemeanor and the petty offense carried a $100.fine. The Governor, who opposes Prop 19, said:

I am signing Senate Bill 1449. This bill changes the crime of possession of less than an ounce of marijuana from a misdemeanor punishable only by a $100 fine to an infraction punishable by a $100 fine. Under existing law, jail time cannot be imposed, probation cannot be ordered, nor can the base fine exceed $100 for someone convicted of this crime.

I am opposed to decriminalizing the possession and recreational use of marijuana and oppose Proposition 19, which is on the November ballot.

So what's the difference? According to the Governor:

The only difference is that because it is a misdemeanor, a criminal defendant is entitled to a jury trial and a defense attorney. In this time of drastic budget cuts, prosecutors, defense attorneys, law enforcement, and the courts cannot afford to expend limited resources prosecuting a crime that carries the same punishment as a traffic ticket. As noted by the Judicial Council in its support of this measure, the appointment of counsel and the availability of a jury trial should be reserved for defendants who are facing loss of life, liberty, or property greater than $100.

So his goal was not to ensure that those who possess marijuana don't end up with a criminal record. It was to save money and prevent them from getting a jury trial and a lawyer at state expense.

Is an infraction not a crime in California? Will those who are fined be entitled to state on employment applications that they have never been charged or convicted of a criminal offense under the new law? If not, the change does not go far enough.

Total decriminalization is needed. Writing tickets for pot possession is a waste of state resources.

< Thursday Night Open Thread | Friday Morning Open Thread >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Schwarzenegger Signs Bill Reducing Marijuana Penalties | 23 comments (23 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Bizarro world. (none / 0) (#1)
by lentinel on Fri Oct 01, 2010 at 09:40:54 AM EST

I just can't imagine what it would feel like to be standing there while a cop wrote out a ticket for a citizen with a joint.

arnold has been pretty great (none / 0) (#2)
by Capt Howdy on Fri Oct 01, 2010 at 09:47:37 AM EST

lately. he made a long speech the other day calling out the oil companies:

High point of Arnold's career: Calling out the Texas oil companies behind Prop 23!

This is essentially (none / 0) (#3)
by CST on Fri Oct 01, 2010 at 09:59:39 AM EST

what the law is in MA since 2008, only we did it by ballot initiative. Pot was more popular than Obama (who was very popular), Kerry, and everything else on the ballot.

I think it has definitely relaxed the culture surrounding the issue. I'm actually kind of surprised by how much the legal landscape on this issue has changed in the last few years.

Why is it a crime to have more than one ounce? (none / 0) (#4)
by Yes2Truth on Fri Oct 01, 2010 at 10:39:07 AM EST

Thank you. I'll hold. Take your time. I'm sure
you can come up with SOMETHING.

The CA state employment questionairre (none / 0) (#5)
by me only on Fri Oct 01, 2010 at 10:41:20 AM EST

does not require everyone to fill out the

CRIMINAL RECORD SUPPLEMENTAL QUESTIONNAIRE

Even if it did, here are the questions:

1. Have you ever been convicted by any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence?.................................................................􀁆 YES 􀁆 NO
2. Have you ever been convicted by any court of a felony?.....................􀁆 YES 􀁆 NO

So, pot possession is not covered in the application.

Pot is a gateway drug (none / 0) (#6)
by 1980Ford on Fri Oct 01, 2010 at 10:50:05 AM EST

That is why so many government agents oppose legalization. It is a gateway to search and seizure for other crimes. Thnink Paris Hilton.

If it's treated like a traffic ticket (none / 0) (#7)
by Chuck0 on Fri Oct 01, 2010 at 11:30:25 AM EST

then it seems to me that you could state NO on any employment application inquiring whether or not you have been convicted of a crime.

The real point (none / 0) (#8)
by diogenes on Fri Oct 01, 2010 at 11:37:57 AM EST

What percentage of people who speed or run red lights ever get traffic tickets? Perhaps one tenth of one percent.
Of course, if the cops see you smoking a joint then they may have probable cause for stopping you and pursuing other crimes. Maybe you're smoking a joint but carrying a gun or some crack. That's why they keep it a violation--to justify the discretionary police action.

Boy would we love that in Ga! (none / 0) (#9)
by Xclusionary Rule 4ever on Fri Oct 01, 2010 at 01:33:20 PM EST

GA NORML is seeking a sponsor for just such a bill. I realize that it is a half measure and full legalization is warranted, but we would settle for a civil penalty law in Ga in a heartbeat.

What is needed.. (none / 0) (#10)
by pcpablo on Fri Oct 01, 2010 at 02:56:36 PM EST

is for someone to devise a test for pot in the human body that can only tell if it has been ingested within an 8 hour time frame.
That way it would be enforceable much like an alcohol breathalyzer test for driving under the influence.
It would also help those at their place of employment because the pee test tells nothing about current impairment, just if pot was used within the month.

Well (none / 0) (#11)
by squeaky on Fri Oct 01, 2010 at 03:01:27 PM EST

Not sure that is possible.

And law enforcement is only interested in issuing citations or arresting people, so the longer weed stays in the body the more wins for the police.

What would be smart, would be to do away with all chemical tests altogether and have accurate Impairment tests, considering impairment is the issue, not levels of alcohol or drugs.


It has (none / 0) (#13)
by me only on Fri Oct 01, 2010 at 03:14:22 PM EST

a blood test.


NO (none / 0) (#14)
by squeaky on Fri Oct 01, 2010 at 03:28:42 PM EST

Not a blood test that determines how long. You can ingest MJ and have it show up in a blood test 3 weeks later.


No you cannot (none / 0) (#15)
by me only on Fri Oct 01, 2010 at 03:42:12 PM EST

11-nor-9-carboxy-delta-9-THC (inactive metabolite) will show up for weeks. THC (delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol), which is what causes the high is only detectable for hours after ingestion.

Delta-9-THC concentration usually drops below 5 ng/mL within 3-4 hours post dose. Frequent users may have longer detection times.

Up to approximately 8 hours.


Unlike alcohol and some other drugs (none / 0) (#16)
by Harry Saxon on Fri Oct 01, 2010 at 04:51:28 PM EST

you can't link a blood level of THC to a specific level of intoxication, some folks might be stoned on a blood level that in a chronic user might not be enough to give them the munchies.

Impairment testing of the suspect would be a better measurement of their fitness to drive, IMHO.


Alcohol works the same way (none / 0) (#18)
by me only on Fri Oct 01, 2010 at 07:18:05 PM EST

Your are presumed impaired at a blood alcohol level, even if you can pass the sobriety tests.

MADD insists on lowering the level, even though studies have shown that most of the car accidents that kill that involve alcohol the alcohol content of the driver is over 0.15.


: Would be remiss not to point out (none / 0) (#19)
by Rojas on Fri Oct 01, 2010 at 08:29:38 PM EST

the the original poster referred to a "breathalyser" that has measurement repeatability in the range of a average dart player....
After three beers.

why is he opposing prop 19? (none / 0) (#12)
by nyrias on Fri Oct 01, 2010 at 03:08:49 PM EST

So what it is a gateway drug.

Booze is a gateway drug, and i don't see it banned (except of course it was tried with disastrous consequences).

: He used it in his youth (none / 0) (#17)
by Harry Saxon on Fri Oct 01, 2010 at 04:53:02 PM EST

and the sad result is plain for all to see, what else can explain the decision to make "Jingle All the Way"?

Agree...and disagree (none / 0) (#20)
by Jack E Lope on Sat Oct 02, 2010 at 09:40:29 AM EST

With the last paragraph:

Agreed on both points. However, one big improvement is that the police won't be getting search warrants and busting down doors for possession. I think that fewer state resources are likely to go toward enforcement of this lesser penalty.

When Oregon made possession of small amounts a $100 violation, in the 1970s, the police would only bother someone smoking in plain sight. (Recriminalization came in the "just-say-No" eighties.)

Much like speeding, there was a level of safety in numbers. At large outdoor gatherings - or any day on campus - it was difficult to know where the sources of that scent were....

: "busting down doors" (none / 0) (#21)
by diogenes on Sat Oct 02, 2010 at 10:52:20 AM EST

You get a search warrant to bust down a door for possession of more than an ounce, presumably because of suspicion of dealing. You can still get those search warrants.

Governor's strained phrasing. (none / 0) (#22)
by NYxile in CA on Sat Oct 02, 2010 at 10:58:29 AM EST

Talk about the Emperor having no clothes: to read the Governor's tortured phrasing--"...nor can the base fine exceed $100 for someone convicted of this crime"--just illustrates how pathetic and pointless laws against drug use are. This would be a crime against... whom, exactly? His action in signing SB-1449--speaks louder than his cowardly stated position.

Prop 19 does not violate Supremacy clause (none / 0) (#23)
by Xclusionary Rule 4ever on Wed Oct 06, 2010 at 09:50:29 AM EST

detailed analysis here
The controlled substances act actually limits the type of preemption attacks and anticipates state laws posing a theoretical obstacle to enforcement. Since prop 19 does not require an act that violates federal law, it is not preempted.