Connecticut decriminalizes MJ!

[MPI1]

AP

HARTFORD, Conn. -- The Connecticut Senate narrowly approved legislation on Saturday that decriminalizes the possession of small amounts of marijuana.

The measure passed after Democratic Lt. Gov. Nancy Wyman broke an 18-to-18 tie vote as the president of the state Senate. It now moves to the House of Representatives for final legislative action.

While opponents of the bill said it sends the wrong message, proponents said the legislation will help young people arrested for marijuana possession to avoid a criminal record that could hurt their chances to find a good job or enter college.

"It puts into jeopardy the future endeavors of such young people," said Sen. Eric Coleman, D-Bloomfield, co-chairman of the General Assembly's Judiciary Committee. "Decriminalizing the use and possession of small amounts of marijuana is a better course and in the best interest of young people whose judgment may not be fully matured."

Senate Majority Leader Martin Looney, D-New Haven, stressed that lawmakers were not legalizing marijuana.

"We are not enforcing the use of illegal drugs. We strongly disapprove of their use, but we're trying to realign their punishment that is more appropriate," he said, adding that the state should be focusing its scarce criminal justice resources on dangerous offenders.

Under the bill, possession of less than a half-ounce of marijuana would no longer be a misdemeanor. Instead, it would result in a $150 fine for a first offense and a fine ranging from $200 to $500 for subsequent offenses. Those under 21 years old would face a 60-day driver's license suspension, similar to the existing penalty for possessing alcohol.

Under current law, possession of marijuana is a misdemeanor, punishable by a possible jail term and larger fines: $1,000 for a first offense and $3,000 for subsequent offenses.

The bill also requires anyone 18 years old or younger who is caught with less than a half-ounce to be referred to the state's juvenile courts.

During the debate, Sen. Toni Boucher, R-Wilton, an outspoken opponent of any efforts to legalize marijuana, persuaded the majority Democrats to further amend the bill to require someone caught three times with less than a half-ounce to seek drug treatment. Boucher voiced concern about the potential ill health effects from marijuana usage. She said she's been urged by families who've lost children to drug addiction to oppose the decriminalization bill.

"When we do this, and it has been shown in other states that have gone down this path, there is both an increase in use and an increase in crime," said Boucher, who also opposes another bill that would fully legalize the medical use of marijuana. The fate of that legislation remains in doubt as lawmakers face a midnight adjournment on Wednesday.

Senate Minority Leader John McKinney, R-Fairfield, said he opposed the legislation based on personal experience. He told the story of his older sister Lucie, who became addicted to drugs in the 1980s, went to drug rehab and has been clean and sober ever since.

McKinney said marijuana led his sister to use cocaine and other drugs.

"For me, a policy that lessens the severity of drug use is a bad one," he said. "I don't believe we should just give up."

McKinney said there are already options for young people to clear their records from a marijuana possession charge. They can apply for youthful offender status, a program that eventually clears the conviction from a young person's record. Adults also have an opportunity to apply for a similar program called Accelerated Rehabilitation.

Shortly after the bill passed, Democratic Gov. Dannel P. Malloy, a former prosecutor, urged the House of Representatives to pass the decriminalization bill before the session ends. He called it a "commonsense" reform to the criminal justice system.

Malloy said the state is "doing more harm than good when we prosecute people who are caught using marijuana -- needlessly stigmatizing them in a way they would not if they were caught drinking underage.

I love it, they say they don't want it to negitively affect employement or college acceptance, they shouldn't they decriminalize cocaine, Ex, and all the other hard drugs? I am against this, good thing I live in a state where this is still illegal.

[retdetsgt]

Oregon decriminalized less than an ounce sometime in the late 70's. It's considered a violation and carries only a fine. The sky didn't fall after it passed.

It's a gateway drug, yeah, but alcohol is more of one. A majority of drug addicts will tell you they started with booze.

Edited to add, I don't support it by any means, but I bet marijuana get legalized within the next 20 years or so. There's been a groundswell of support gradually building over the years. The advent of "medical" marijuana was just the first step. I hate to see it, not especially because of adults, but teenagers. Kids become depressed and almost literally drop out of life. If it's legalized, even if they can't buy it, it will be more accessible to them.

[mobrien316]

This sounds bad but in reality it seems to make sense. If someone is caught with a small amount and they get a ticket with a fine (and a higher fine on subsequent offenses); they are still facing some sort of penalty but it results in much less clogging of the court system.

I think they could have made it a little more strict, such if you are caught with an ounce or less you pay a $500 fine and are automatically sentenced to forty hours of community service doing someone worthwhile in the state. Subsequent offenses go up by $500 and forty hours each.

[sparrow803]

Hmmm, wonder how this will play out in the future. IF it becomes legalized and let's say instead of a bar serving alcoholic beverages they serve different varieties of the weed, how will that play out when ya can't smoke in a bar? LOL....would a weed serving establishment open to the public be exempt from the no smoking laws? And, imagine the contact highs we'll all get walking down the street, or at entrances/exits to other public places.

I think it is a mistake to legalize it, but I also don't think jail time for a recreational user is the answer either.

[G35 Mass]

Tokers have, in yet another state, shot themselves in the foot.

Let's face it: The majority of the marijuana that this applies to is seized from a motor vehicle, and more often than not it was due to the odor of burnt marijuana being present.

Prior to MJ being decriminalized in Mass, the sole possessor would face a tiny misdemeanor charge that, if it was the first offense, could be expunged.

Now, the driver gets locked up for OUI-Drugs (aka: DWI-Drugs), incurs a loss of license, car towed, and he and all his buddies get $100 tickets that basically can't be successfully appealed and is a more expensive cost than the ~$73 court costs were for the old misdemeanor MJ possession charge. Also the defendant's legal fees are through the roof, as they're hiring real lawyers to defend serious charges whereas a simple misdemeanor MJ possession case was usually disposed of at the first court hearing "pro se".

Oh, and we get more court time.

Thanks, tokers.

[greg72982]

I think they could have made it a little more strict, such if you are caught with an ounce or less you pay a $500 fine and are automatically sentenced to forty hours of community service doing someone worthwhile in the state.

Freudian slip sir? :D

[sparrow803]

Freudian slip sir? :D

LOL I missed that one!

[mobrien316]

...doing someone worthwhile in the state.

D'oh!

[G35 Mass]

And a day after my above post, I grab a kid for distributing in a school zone.

His "girlfriend" repeatedly told me "he never sells more than an ounce at a time. It's ALWAYS under an ounce!"

Thank you, my dear. A year ago, I would have grabbed him on a simple possession charge and he'd have paid court costs and unsupervised probation. Now I spend the time asking a few more questions and I seal a pretty good case. 2.5 year minimum mandatory due to the school zone.....

[patchcop]

Here in Germany we have the "for own use" law. Means, the state attorny or the judge can close the case when it is a little amount of drugs (MJ, heroine, cocaine, speed, meth......). Stupid thing is that the police has to write a report, has to suspend the drugs (OK, the guy don't get them back, also when the case is closed) and has do do whatever has to be donde. So we have the work for allmost no success. Only with an amount of closed cases the law system will do anything against the bad guys with the small amount of drugs. For that reason our drug dealers allways have only a little amount with them, the other drugs arein their "bunkers".