Schwarzenegger Signs Marijuana Infraction Measure!

[finchrock24]

http://blog.norml.org/2010/10/01/no...rzenegger-signs-marijuana-infraction-measure/

just some recent news. possesion of MJ under an ounce is a $100 fine no court, no fees, no record. exactly like a speeding ticket...except cheaper and much easier because there is no traffic school!

 

[Purple-Days]

Sounds good on the surface.

But, what it really does is remove your right to a jury trial. Obviously prosecutors were not happy when a minor posesion charge resulted in a real trial, jury selection and court costs, when you could hardly expect 12 Cali residents to convict. Therefor so many cases were being dropped, that cops just weren't willing to arrest for minor amounts . . .

The law and order folks (cops and prosecutors) love this. Stoners will love it.

But really it is a step sideways or even backwards, with the removal of your legal rights. Now you can't fight city hall.

 

[Beezleb]

I have the same view as Tom and in part this is a money grab

 

[lwien]

Of course this was done for fiscal reasons, but I welcome it. I think it's a win-win all the way around. Why would I want to go through the time and expense of a jury trial for simple possession?

In one respect, this is kinda like a plea bargin, and all things considered, I'd take this any day of the week.

 

[finchrock24]

Sounds good on the surface.

But, what it really does is remove your right to a jury trial. Obviously prosecutors were not happy when a minor posesion charge resulted in a real trial, jury selection and court costs, when you could hardly expect 12 Cali residents to convict. Therefor so many cases were being dropped, that cops just weren't willing to arrest for minor amounts . . .

The law and order folks (cops and prosecutors) love this. Stoners will love it.

But really it is a step sideways or even backwards, with the removal of your legal rights. Now you can't fight city hall.

I won't get into my story here or now, but I was arrested for what I call a small amount...I did fight it and I did spend the money (around $17K after all said and done) and it still didn't make a different. I see your point about removing our rights to a jury trial, but how often is that a neccesity when someone gets a ticket for possesion, which is what they did before.

I think most poeple would rather just pay the $100 and call it done. Before they made you show up in court like a criminal and waste your time and money. I guess it just depends on the person, but I personally think its just makes things easier. I have been through the court shit (maybe you have, maybe you haven't) but to me it makes my stomach turn over.

 

[Beezleb]

The issue is far larger than weed. Weed is just an aspect of a larger issue about American rights. Once they get their foot in the door they will use that for all kind of other issues. Some you may or may not care about but a devaluing of our rights none the less. Just how I see it.

You should have the right to contest it. I am assuming you do not. I suppose I should really read the thing first. Doh. But if its handled liked a traffic ticket where you can argue it or just pay the fine and that is that than I am fine with it.

From the way I read the article I did not take it as not being able to argue against it but more as a reclassification of it criminally. In essence he decriminalized it so I think I jumped the gun in my view point as if not abused and if one is able to argue against a citation if they choose then I see this as a good thing and a potential example of how reform could begin for some states.

Hehe, my editing is slower than the forum travels.

 

[lwien]

The issue is far larger than weed. Weed is just an aspect of a larger issue about American rights. Once they get their foot in the door they will use that for all kind of other issues. Some you may or may not care about but a devaluing of our rights none the less. Just how I see it.

You should have the right to contest it.

Yeah, but that whole "slippery slope" concept can be applied to just about anything, and can stop us dead in the tracks from doing...........just about anything.

l remember hearing this argument applied to allowing gays to get married. The "slippery slope" argument went like, "If you allow 2 men or 2 women to marry now, whats' stopping us from allowing a man to marry a dog sometime in the future?

One has to take into account that somewhere along that slope, we have the capacity to make the right decisions.

 

[finchrock24]

The issue is far larger than weed. Weed is just an aspect of a larger issue about American rights. Once they get their foot in the door they will use that for all kind of other issues. Some you may or may not care about but a devaluing of our rights none the less. Just how I see it.

You should have the right to contest it. I am assuming you do not. I suppose I should really read the thing first. Doh. But if its handled liked a traffic ticket where you can argue it or just pay the fine and that is that than I am fine with it.

It is possible that somewhere in the law, it gives the offender the option of court. Like you said, you have the option with a traffic ticket or any other violation, I wouldn't see this being any different. I'm going to do some quick googling because my gut tells me that the new law would at least give the person the option to fight it.

 

[finchrock24]

The issue is far larger than weed. Weed is just an aspect of a larger issue about American rights. Once they get their foot in the door they will use that for all kind of other issues. Some you may or may not care about but a devaluing of our rights none the less. Just how I see it.

You should have the right to contest it.

Yeah, but that whole "slippery slope" concept can be applied to just about anything, and can stop us dead in the tracks from doing...........just about anything.

l remember hearing this argument applied to allowing gays to get married. The "slippery slope" argument went like, "If you allow 2 men or 2 women to marry now, whats' stopping us from allowing a man to marry a dog sometime in the future?

One has to take into account that somewhere along that slope, we have the capacity to make the right decisions.

I agree lwien.

The only stuff I have found is that the articles say its treated 'exactly like a speeding ticket' and when you do get a speeding ticket, you get the option of mailing in your money or going to court and fighting. I would ASSUME it is the same with this infraction. And infraction is an infraction regardless of the type. I can't confirm, but from what I have read, it looks like going to court and fighting it would be an option.

Does anyone know a cop we can ask?

 

[reece]

In Louisiana with regards to traffic violations one can choose to pay the fine or go to court to fight it. Is it the same in Cali? I can't seem to find anything in the text of this law saying someone can contest the fine.

But what if you feel there was no cause for a search? What if it was actually in the possession of someone else but the officer gave you both a ticket?

Maybe the text of specific infractions don't need to spell out the right to fight a ticket?

Are there any infractions where the alleged offender has no right to defend themselves?

edit:

Some of my questions were answered while I was posting...

I'm thinking this is a good thing.

 

[Beezleb]

The issue is far larger than weed. Weed is just an aspect of a larger issue about American rights. Once they get their foot in the door they will use that for all kind of other issues. Some you may or may not care about but a devaluing of our rights none the less. Just how I see it.

You should have the right to contest it.

Yeah, but that whole "slippery slope" concept can be applied to just about anything, and can stop us dead in the tracks from doing...........just about anything.

l remember hearing this argument applied to allowing gays to get married. The "slippery slope" argument went like, "If you allow 2 men or 2 women to marry now, whats' stopping us from allowing a man to marry a dog sometime in the future?

One has to take into account that somewhere along that slope, we have the capacity to make the right decisions.

The problem the government is full of examples of how they expand upon taxes and how prosecutors apply laws differently than how they were intended.

Regarding the slippery slope concept, well ones a law/regulation or what have you passes it becomes a tool for them and this is far to realistically serious for me to accept an example of gays wanting to marrying leading to bestiality/marriage. Absolutely absurd and while I know you are only extolling a view point you came across I see it without genuine merit from a rational point of view.

Keep in mind, "right" is very subjective. Terrorist who want to cut your head off believe they are right for wanting to do so. Right is not much different than best.

 

[pakalolo]

I'm not an American, but I doubt that the issuing of a ticket for anything could be an automatic conviction. You can even fight parking tickets. Automatic conviction would violate your Constitution, wouldn't it?

 

[lwien]

Regarding the slippery slope concept, well ones a law/regulation or what have you passes it becomes a tool for them and this is far to realistically serious for me to accept an example of gays wanting to marrying leading to bestiality/marriage. Absolutely absurd and while I know you are only extolling a view point you came across I see it without genuine merit from a rational point of view.

Extolling? Not extolling at all. Just using that as an example. I agree that it is totally without merit, but then I also believe that most slippery slope arguments are without merit, and are mostly based upon fear of something that hasn't even occurred.

I brought up the "gay marriage" analogy because it was a pretty well documented argument that was used when this was a popular topic. In that same vane, that same argument has been used for "stem cell research". Hell, the same argument is used with the anti-marijuana people. "It's a slippery slope. If we legalize MJ, then we will legalize smack and coke".

My feeling is this. Just because we do "one thing", does not automatically mean that we will eventually do "this other thing".

 

[reece]

The slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy.

You use the example of prosecutors abusing their authority. The slide down that slope began where? Giving them discretion? Creating laws? Establishing a government? Human evolution (the root is human nature isn't it?)?

Lwien is right, everything is a slippery slope.

 

[lwien]

The slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy.

You use the example of prosecutors abusing their authority. The slide down that slope began where? Giving them discretion? Creating laws? Establishing a government? Human evolution (the root is human nature isn't it?)?

One has to wonder that if the slippery slope argument was applied at the beginning of time, where would we be today?

 

[Beezleb]

Oh please, I thought was talking about real life and not ideology. You can have the discussion.

 

[Nosferatu]

But I thought if you are medical and show the officer your rec, he wont care and can still cite you. Then in court you show that you are medical and within the law and get it dropped, thats what i always heard. That you shouldnt even show the officer your rec, just go to court and get it dropped. So now if I got pulled over I should nicely explain I'm medical and I'll get away with it? Or I'll get a $100 fine I cant fight? Or can I?

 

[finchrock24]

But I thought if you are medical and show the officer your rec, he wont care and can still cite you. Then in court you show that you are medical and within the law and get it dropped, thats what i always heard. That you shouldnt even show the officer your rec, just go to court and get it dropped. So now if I got pulled over I should nicely explain I'm medical and I'll get away with it? Or I'll get a $100 fine I cant fight? Or can I?

I would immediately explain that you are a medical patient and offer to let the officer look at your doctors note. It is up to the officer about citing you or not. Techincally, he is supposed to and you need to show up in court to have charges dropped. However, some LEO's know that it will be useless to cite you if your medical, so they won't even do anything.

If your medical and you get pulled over, you may get cited for possession you may not, but either way you can't be charged with any type of infraction as long as your following the MMJ procedures.

 

[Beezleb]

I would not tell a cop I was a medical marijuana patient if in a vehicle as this might bring a DUI type of aspect to the situation. I recommend a video called dont talk to cops http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik

 

[finchrock24]

I would not tell a cop I was a medical marijuana patient if in a vehicle as this might bring a DUI type of aspect to the situation. I recommend a video called dont talk to cops http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik

That may or may not be true...but the cop is going to ask. That will be his first question if he finds weed in your car or on you, unless you just give it to them. The cop WILL ask if you have your card (they aren't stupid, they know what's going on...I have had cops tell friends that they should get their card so they don't get hassled). Once you say you are medical, they will want to see it.

So you can't really just pass off being a patient...unless you say your aren't medical and want to take the infraction and fine....

 

[aesthyrian]

It's better and cheaper than locking people up, so that alone means this is some sort of progress IMO. Not the unicorn farting glitter that we all want, but one tiny step closer to sanity in regards to Marijuana policy. Just keep pushing, look at how desensitized people are to Alcohol, and that's a dangerous drug that kills. Eventually people will open their eyes, I hope this will only help. At least less families will be torn apart over weed, and less of our tax money will be spent keeping pot offenders in privatized prisons. Plain and simple this is better than it was.

 

[EonBlue]

Here is a link to the bill if anyone is interested.
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/sen/sb_1401-1450/sb_1449_bill_20100405_amended_sen_v98.html

 

[steiner666]

That's cool, I wish my state was like that. I think ppl seem to be overlooking the fact that they say this doesn't even go on your record at all. Whatever the motives for it, I think it's a step towards making people view it as not being a crime. It helps reinforce MJs position in the legal gray area, not quite legal yet, but not so closely associated with real drugs like meth and crack as before.

 

[finchrock24]

Yeah, ST666 you put it good. The fight is about opening minds and making people realize that MJ should not be in the same class as many other drugs. And for the Feds to still sit there and say it is a schedual I (which means it has NO medical value) is absolutely absurd.

 

[Pappy]

That what I call progress! Lunk lif da Grooverntir!

If Clinton had Arnold's balls or Carter had Clinton's charm pot would've been legal when I still had hair!