California Marijuana Arrests Remain Near Record Levels in 2009
via California NORML

According to data from the Bureau of Criminal Statistics, California reported nearly the same number of marijuana arrests in 2009 as in the previous, record year.

In 2009, there were 17,008 felony and 61,164 misdemeanor marijuana arrests, for a total of 78,172. In 2008, there were 17,126 felonies and 61,388 misdemeanors, for a total of 78,514. This was the highest number of arrests since marijuana was decriminalized in 1976.

So to summarize, this means that there have been more than 122,500 criminal prosecutions in California for the non-medical possession of marijuana of less than one ounce since 2008 (and that’s not counting 2010). Since marijuana possession is a criminal misdemeanor in California, that means that all of these individuals were forced to appear in court, pay court costs, pay an administrative fine, and were subject to either drug treatment or a temporary (2 years) criminal record. And, oh yeah, they also had their marijuana forcefully taken away from them by the full police power of the state.

Since 2008, there were also over 34,000 felony marijuana prosecutions (not counting 2010). Marijuana felonies in California include charges like: growing even a single marijuana plant for non-medical purposes (punishable by up to 36 months in prison), and the sale of any amount of marijuana for non-medical purposes (punishable by up to four years in prison).

Does that sound like legalization to you?

Passage of Prop. 19 would make the adult possession (up to an ounce) of marijuana and the cultivation of marijuana (whatever amount may be harvested from a 25 square foot garden) legal. In other words, it would halt the criminal prosecutions of tens of thousands of Californians who are presently running afoul of the criminal law. It would offer legal protection to the estimated 3.3 million Californians who are presently using marijuana for non-medical purposes. (By contrast, only an estimated 200,000 or so Californians possess a valid doctor’s recommendation to use cannabis lawfully.) And that is why NORML supports this effort.

In a similar vein, I’m also frequently asked the question: ‘Why legalize marijuana? Why not just decriminalize it?’

First, let’s look at what ‘decriminalization’ really means:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/decriminalization

Definition of DECRIMINALIZE

: to remove or reduce the criminal classification or status of; especially : to repeal a strict ban on while keeping under some form of regulation

The term ‘decriminalize’ first came into vogue in 1972 when the Nixon’s Schafer Commission recommended this public policy for marijuana. Their recommendation to Congress was to replace criminal penalties on adult possession with administrative (non-criminal) sanctions, such as a fine — but to keep the commodity defined as contraband and to maintain criminal penalties on its retail sale and production.

As a stopgap measure NORML has supported, and still supports, decriminalization. In fact, we are presently encouraging Californians to contact the Governor in support of Senate Bill 1449, which reduced adult possess penalties from a misdemeanor to a civil infraction.

But any public policy that mandates that marijuana remain, by definition, an illegal commodity (contraband) is woefully insufficient — as by definition it grants the state (law enforcement) the power to forcefully engage with the public in order to legally seize said commodity. That is why, even in places that have ‘decriminalized’ marijuana possession, we still see horrific acts of violence by police upon marijuana consumers like this and this.

By contrast, simply removing marijuana from the entire criminal code in California, which appears to be what some anti-19 Utopians would prefer, would not fall under the definition of decriminalization — which by its very definition still maintains government sanctions and regulations. In fact, it is hard to define any statutory term for such an idyllic change, as virtually all ‘legal’ commodities are defined as such, and are thus subject to rules and regulations. As I’ve written previously, tomatoes aren’t decriminalized; they are legal and thus subject to regulation and taxation when they are commercially produced and sold on the retail market.

I suppose one could argue that dandelions are non-criminal yet they are not subject to government taxation and regulation. But of course dandelions are not a commodity that is bought and sold on the open market. (Yes, like marijuana, dandelions also grow out of the ground. But, of course, so does wheat — which is highly regulated by the government.) And of course it is totally unrealistic to think that a commodity like marijuana, that is ingested and purchased by tens of millions of Americans, would ever be treated like dandelions.

It is foolish for critics of Prop. 19 to demand that marijuana be treated in a ‘legal’ manner, but then at the same time demand that it not be subject to regulation when the fact of the matter is that all legal commodities are regulated in some manner and subject to taxation.

Gasoline is taxed at the state level, federal level, and there’s also an excise tax. How about water? If your house is connected to a sewer your water consumption is taxed, and there are numerous regulations imposed upon it. The state can control what goes into your water (e.g., flouride). The state can even restrict how much water one uses (e.g., water rationing) in one’s own home. And of course there is alcohol. In this case the government regulates who can use it (e.g., age restrictions); where one can use it (e.g., no use in public parks, in motor vehicles, etc.), what time of day one can buy it, where one can buy it, how much one can brew themselves, how it can be advertised, and so on and so forth. Yet does anyone truly think that these commodities are not ‘fully legal’ because there are taxes and regulations associated with them? Does anyone really think that water should be ‘decriminalized, but not legalized?’

Ultimately, the question is: what is the preferable policy for adult marijuana use — not the Utopian. Right now the state has the power of a gun to seize an adult’s marijuana — even marijuana that is used in the privacy of one’s home home — and to sanction that adult with criminal prosecution and a criminal record if their use is for non-medical purposes. Under Prop. 19, an individual would no longer face these criminal sanctions for their private activities, as long as their private use was limited to possession and cultivation within certain limits. That, in NORML’s opinion, is a net gain — not a net loss.

Tags:

Related Articles

• Despite Decrim, California Marijuana Possession Busts Abound [FEATURE]
• Texas Now Prosecuting TWO Medical Marijuana Patients [FEATURE]
• Prop 19: Support Legalizing Marijuana In California
• NORML Action Alert: Urge California’s Gov. Schwarzenegger To Sign Marijuana Infraction Measure
• More Than Half a Million Californians Arrested for Marijuana Possession in Past Decade

Investigators say undercover officers bought drugs at Tysons Galleria. They’ve arrested five men and charged them with conspiracy to distribute ecstasy and marijuana.

Video: Arrests Made in Tysons Ecstasy Bust
Source: Medical Marijuana

Tags:

Related Articles

• Who Says Marijuana Is Good Medicine?
• What’s Happening with New East Bay Pot Laws?
• Vote on Medical Marijuana in Alabama
• Video: Woonsocket Takes Action to Keep Drugs Off the Streets
• Video: Woon Drug Crackdown

US District Court Judge Julie Carnes sentenced former officer Arthur Tesler to five years in prison, Gregg Junnier to six years, and Jason Smith to 10 years. All three sentences were less than those called for by federal sentencing guidelines.

Johnston was killed about 7 p.m. on November 21, 2006. Three hours earlier, Tesler arrested and roughed-up a small-time drug dealer named Fabian Sheats and threatened to send him to prison unless he gave up another drug dealer. Sheats eventually pointed out Johnston’s home, apparently at random, telling Tesler and his partners he saw a dealer named “Sam” with a kilo of cocaine there.

The three officers wanted to make a buy, but didn’t consider Sheats reliable, so they called an informant named Alex White to come make the buy. But White was unavailable, so the trio simply wrote a false affidavit saying they had watched White make a cocaine buy at Johnston’s home. Shortly before 6:00 p.m., they had their no-knock search warrant. An hour later, Johnston was dead after firing upon the intruders she apparently thought were robbers.

Then the cover-up kicked in, with the trio creating more false documents to hide the truth. But their cover-up fell apart when their informant, Alex White, grew frightened and went to the FBI.

In her sentencing statement, Judge Carnes criticized the Atlanta Police Department for its performance quotas for search warrants and arrests, saying the “pressures brought to bear did have an impact on these and other officers on the force.” If anything good came from Johnston’s death, it will be “a renewed effort by the Atlanta Police Department to prevent something like this from ever happening again,” Carnes said. “It is my fervent hope the APD will take to heart what has happened here,” the judge said.

Courtesy: DRCNet

Tags:

Related Articles

• Should Philadelphia Be Excited About Its Big Drug Bust?
• New York City Pot Arrest Capital of the World
• Maine Police Chief Wants Cocaine Misdemeanors to Be Felonies
• Louisiana Lawmen Play Fast And Loose with the Constitution
• ‘Bit of an Odd Situation,’ Police Find Bears Guarding Pot Crop

The latest department to step into the breach was Louisiana’s Beauregard Parish Sheriff’s Office, which held such a checkpoint on the night of August 14, 2008 near the town of Starks. Following the lead of sheriff’s deputies, the local newspaper was all over the story.

“Narcotics checkpoint a success,” blared the headline in Monday’s Derrider Daily News story on the police action. The article went on to explain how, following complaints of drug dealing in the neighborhood, police decided to take action:

“The Beauregard Parish Sheriff’s Office set up a Narcotics Checkpoint Thursday night near Starks, Louisiana,” the local paper reported. “Due to several complaints coming from the Fields area, the BPSO put together a joint operation with the help of Sheriff Ricky Moses and the DeRidder city police department. The operations utilized several BPSO deputies as well as the new Drug Interdiction team led by Detectives Dale Sharp and Greg Hill. Seven police units total were used for the operation in addition to four other units performing regular patrols.”

The checkpoint resulted in three arrests for marijuana and hydrocodone possession, a quarter pound of marijuana being tossed from an unknown vehicle’s window, and a number of traffic citations.

“If this really was a drug checkpoint, it is clearly unconstitutional,” said Steve Silverman, executive director of the constitutional rights defense group Flex Your Rights. “If people went to court and fought it, the evidence would be dismissed — unless they consented to a search. The sheriff down there must know checkpoints like this are constitutionally questionable, but they can still ask people to consent, and they know how to phrase that request in such a way that people are likely to consent,” he said.

“If they are stopping and searching people without probable cause, that would appear to violate Edmonds, but we don’t know for sure that’s what they were doing,” said Marjorie Esman, head of the ACLU’s Louisiana affiliate. “Drug checkpoints are unconstitutional, but these guys sound like they are straight up trying to do one,” said Esman.

While the Supreme Court has held drug checkpoints to be unconstitutional, it has allowed the use of checkpoints whose primary purpose is protecting certain safety-related governmental interests. Thus sobriety checkpoints are lawful, as are checkpoints to check drivers’ licenses and motor vehicle registrations, as well as checkpoints designed to search for illegal aliens near the border. This week, the sheriff’s office was busy arguing that it wasn’t an unconstitutional drug checkpoint after all, merely a safety check.

“They’re really safety checkpoints,” backpedaled Beauregard Parish Sheriff’s Office Chief Deputy Joe Toler. “The newspaper has its own spin on it,” he said, adding that the warning signs specified a safety checkpoint, not a drug checkpoint.

The newspaper article certainly did have a spin, but that spin was provided by Beauregard Parish Deputy Dale Sharp, head of the department’s new drug interdiction team. “The Narcotics Checkpoint’s main objective was to get the narcotics off of the street,” the article said before quoting Sharp: “Anything off of the streets is not in the hands of kids or anyone else,” Sharp said in the article.

Sharp also bragged that more checkpoints could be coming soon. “Definitely,” says Sharp. “As more complaints come in, we will be doing more.”

But Chief Deputy Toler was sticking to the official line. “There just happened to be narcotics officers out there, and it just so happened that we did our safety checkpoint in a certain area where they place is known for drug trafficking,” he said. “It just so happened they were all in the right place at the right time,” he added.

Drivers and vehicles were not searched without consent, Toler said. “Everyone pretty much consents,” he said.

“You can still refuse a search at a checkpoint,” said Silverman. “They are not constitutionally allowed to search you just because they set up a checkpoint. You can say, ‘I know you guys are just doing your job, but I have to go somewhere, am I free to go?’ If they search you without probable cause and without your consent and they find something, you’ll get arrested, but it’s highly likely the charges will be thrown out. If not, it could go all the way to the Supreme Court.”

It appears the sheriff’s office is playing a pretty transparent game. They set up the checkpoint because of drug traffic complaints, they searched for drugs, and they had drug detection dogs on the scene — not, presumably, to assist in reading drivers’ licenses. But as long as police are careful to say the right things — “It’s a safety checkpoint” — they can get away with it.

Flex Your Rights’ Silverman also pointed out another permutation in law enforcement drug checkpoint tactics: the drug checkpoint that isn’t. “If you see a warning that says drug checkpoint ahead, don’t throw your stuff out the window, don’t exit at the nearest ramp, don’t do a sudden u-turn to get away, because it’s not a drug checkpoint ahead, but a ruse by police,” said Silverman. “The Supreme Court has held that drug checkpoints are an unconstitutional infringement on your Fourth Amendment rights, but that doesn’t mean police can’t try to fool you. At those fake drug checkpoints, they will have officers waiting to see who throws what out his window, or who suddenly exits to avoid the nonexistent checkpoint, and they will find a reason to stop you.”

So, driving public, if you see a large warning sign that screams “Drug Checkpoint Ahead!” it is either a ruse or an unconstitutional law enforcement activity. But if you run across a sign that warns “Safety Checkpoint Ahead!” know that it is just as likely that police are looking for drugs in the guise of public safety as they are for expired drivers’ licenses.

Tags:

Related Articles

• DEA Seizes Medical Marijuana Seized By Seattle Police
• Should Philadelphia Be Excited About Its Big Drug Bust?
• Latest Illinois Report Prompts Civil Rights Groups to Call for End to Consent Searches
• ‘Bit of an Odd Situation,’ Police Find Bears Guarding Pot Crop
• Why Waste Time With Marijuana Offenses?

The figures come from a just released report by Queens College sociologist Harry Levine and Breaking the Chains executive director Deborah Small. According to the report, “Marijuana Arrest Crusade,” whites constituted only 15% of those arrested, while Hispanics were 31% and blacks made up more than half of all pot arrests, with 52%.

“Racial profiling is a fact of life on the streets of New York City,” said Donna Lieberman, executive director of the New York Civil Liberties Union, during a news conference at the group’s Manhattan headquarters.

New York is among the small number of states that decriminalized marijuana possession in the late 1970s, but that hasn’t stopped police from arresting people carrying small amounts of weed and then subjecting them to average 24-hour stays in New York City jails while they await arraignment. Police get around the decrim law by “manufacturing” arrests for “possession in public view,” said Levine. Police routinely stop young black and brown men on the streets, force them to empty their pockets, then charge them with the more serious “possession in public view” offense.

Since Big Apple marijuana arrests started going through the roof during the administration of Mayor Rudolf Giuliani, the city has sometimes accounted for one out of 10 marijuana arrests in the entire country. Last year, that figure was lower, with New York accounting for roughly 5% of pot arrests nationwide, still a huge number.

That makes New York City “the marijuana arrest capital of the world,” said Lieberman.

Source: Drug War Chronicle

Tags:

Related Articles

• Wilton Pot Bust Tests Feds
• Should Philadelphia Be Excited About Its Big Drug Bust?
• Prison Term for 3 Atlanta Cops Who Killed Woman, 92 in Fake Drug Bust
• Louisiana Lawmen Play Fast And Loose with the Constitution
• ‘Bit of an Odd Situation,’ Police Find Bears Guarding Pot Crop

An FBI spokesperson told the press, “This significant seizure prevented these drugs from entering our community.” But doesn’t that depend on how one defines the term “these drugs”? If the term is meant to refer to that particular shipment, then yes, that specific pile of cocaine will (probably) not enter the Philadelphia community.

If, however, the term is meant to refer to cocaine itself, the type of drug, it’s doubtful – no, impossible – that the seizure could reduce the amount of it in Philadelphia, at least not for very long. The problem is that drug traffickers are clever and industrious people, and they expect that some of the stuff that they ship to any given region is going to get intercepted. On any given day, they probably don’t expect a record to get set, on that particular day. But that doesn’t mean they aren’t prepared if it does. Doubtless one or more batches are now moving up I-95 or some other artery, or are headed to Philly through some other means of transport, if they’re not already there.

The truth is that there probably won’t be a shortage of cocaine in Philadelphia for even a week, if there is any shortage of it even now. By the end of two weeks, there will be little evidence left at all that a record-sized drug bust ever occurred, other than the police records and the past media reports. Of course the authorities won’t be particularly eager to inform the press that their record-sized drug bust has been completely undone by the force of the market. Ironically, media would probably not consider the lack of long-term impact from the bust to be newsworthy, because that’s literally what has happened on every previous occasion.

Ultimately, the bust itself is the best proof that the bust won’t make any difference. Arrests and seizures and prosecutions for drugs are the norm for the United States, in Philadelphia and everywhere else. Yet for all that effort, sustained and conducted aggressively for decades, the demand for cocaine is still so strong that the quantities in which it is found continue to set records. And that is a record of failure by any reasonable definition of the word.

So while I’m sure the press conference was exciting for the people involved in it, I’m not excited, and I don’t see why I should be. When people decide that it’s time to try something different, because they realize how much they’ve been throwing away in money and manpower and lives, that will be much more exciting than a pile of powder and a group of law enforcement brass behind a podium ever could be.

Source: Drug War Chronicle

Tags:

Related Articles

• Prison Term for 3 Atlanta Cops Who Killed Woman, 92 in Fake Drug Bust
• Louisiana Lawmen Play Fast And Loose with the Constitution
• New York City Pot Arrest Capital of the World
• Maine Police Chief Wants Cocaine Misdemeanors to Be Felonies
• Bolivia to Fund Own Anti-Drug Unit, Wants to Reduce ‘U.S. Influence’