California Governor Signs Marijuana Decriminalization Bill

Submitted by Phillip Smith on (Issue #652)
Drug War Issues
Budgets/Taxes/Economics
Personal Marijuana Use
Politics & Advocacy
State & Local Legislatures
State & Local Executive Branches
Decriminalization

California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) Thursday signed into law a bill that decriminalizes the possession of up to one ounce of marijuana. The bill reduces simple possession from a misdemeanor to an infraction.

[image:1 align:left caption:true]Currently, small-time pot possession is "semi-decriminalized" in California. There is no possible jail sentence and a maximum $100 fine. But because possession is a misdemeanor, people caught with pot are "arrested," even if that means only they are served a notice to appear, and they must appear before a court.

That has happened to more than a half million Californians in the last decade, and more than 60,000 last year alone. Every one of them required a court appearance, complete with judge and prosecutor. That costs the cash-strapped state money it desperately needs.

Under the bill signed today, SB 1449, by Sen. Mark Leno (D-San Francisco), marijuana possession will be treated like a traffic ticket. The fine will remain at $100, and there will be no arrest record.

In a signing statement, Schwarzenegger said he opposed decriminalization for personal use -- and threw in a gratuitous jab at Proposition 19, the tax and regulate marijuana legalization initiative -- but that the state couldn't afford the status quo.

"I am signing this measure because possession of less than an ounce of marijuana is an infraction in everything but name," said Schwarzenegger. "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."

"Gov. Schwarzenegger deserves credit for sparing the state's taxpayers the cost of prosecuting minor pot offenders," said California NORML director Dale Gieringer. "Californians increasingly recognize that the war on marijuana is a waste of law enforcement resources."

The law goes into effect January 1. Even if Prop 19 passes in November, it leaves in place misdemeanor charges for smoking in public or in the presence of minors. Those misdemeanors would become infractions under the new law.

News Brief
Permission to Reprint: This content is licensed under a modified Creative Commons Attribution license. Content of a purely educational nature in Drug War Chronicle appear courtesy of DRCNet Foundation, unless otherwise noted.

Comments

Eargoggles (not verified)

Maybe not to lose your career?  State, Federal, Employers has to be on the same page. Its a false sense of freedom even for a medical patient enrolled in the california health dept . If the medical patients are not protected now under 215. Do you think recreational users will be protected under 19?  Hey vote for this . But oh btw you cant work at any job that has a drug test screen or random testing (which i think is a large percent). If you do you risk losing your job.

Again seems an abuse of power and mixed message to the average citizen trying to understand his rights.

So even if this passes its knowing going in.. you are going to be discriminated upon by employers as they do not recognize it. The supreme court has given employers in california that right (as read on americans for safe access). We need to overturn that or reform that area.

Sat, 10/02/2010 - 10:30pm Permalink
Eargoggles (not verified)

I am for ending prohibition on this plant 100% to include agricultural use,textiles and paper etc.  No man or government should have this power over another man. The history of the plant is tainted with misinformation and what i feel is foul play.

Its an abuse of power period.  And the misinformation  continues to be perpetuated and is embedded in many areas federal,law enforcement,labor laws etc. Its suggesting the powers at be or another citizen knows my body better than me and that is insanity. That crosses a line with me.

I do not think intention of ending prohibition on alcohol was not meant to cater to people drunk driving, and abusing. And the same is the case for ending cannabis prohibition.

Should we ban alcohol and your pain killers or sleeping pills since many have abused them and even killed? how about cigarettes. No your given the right to these substances if used responsibly and in cases of prescriptions as prescribed.

 

Mon, 10/04/2010 - 5:10pm Permalink
Valerie M. K. (not verified)

Alcohol and prescriptions pill addictions cost us more in taxes for state drug programs and prisoner housing. Not to mention alcohol related DUI percentage; you hear about drunk drivers killing people, right? The overall effect of alcohol on the human body and mind compared to marijuana in much more devastating. And not only does it destroy the human body and mind but the loved ones of alcoholic/prescription pill abusers are greatly effected as well. Trust.

Mon, 01/10/2011 - 5:33am Permalink
deadwood (not verified)

What party runs the CA gov't, or the federal gov't? If right wing nazis (which I presume means republicans to you) are the ones preventing you from legally  toking, how is that it was republican George Schultz in the Regan admin who was the first high ranking member of either party to say publicly (early 1990's) that Americans needed to rethink the war on marijuana?

And how well have the "progressive" regressive types done? Last I checked, the leaders of the democratic party favor limiting criminal penalties, but NOT legalization - same as most republicans.

Fri, 10/01/2010 - 6:20pm Permalink
Terry Moore (not verified)

Jimmy Cartery explored legalization in 1975 during his Presidential run, so George Schultz was only about 15-20 years behind.

Fri, 10/01/2010 - 7:36pm Permalink
TJLambert (not verified)

I appreciate and really respect the right-wingers who see the freedom and liberty argument. I only wish there were more.

Unfortunately, you see polls all the time that show mid-thirties support from Republicans, round sixty from Democrats. In legislative votes, it's always majority 'no' from Republicans, a (tepid at best) 'yes' from the Democrats.

If the right were behind reform, it would have happened by now.

Absent the culture war, I would think that they would be.

Absent the culture war, it's odd that they're not.

Sat, 10/02/2010 - 4:41am Permalink
Conserva-smoker (not verified)

This isn't so much a left-right issue.  There are millions of conservatives that support Prop 19 across the nation.  Count me as one of them.  And no, just because I am conservative doesn't make me a fascist or a nazi.  Quite the opposite in fact, because I want the govt to have less influence in people's lives and for citizens to be responsible for themselves.  The Governator's decriminalization combined with passage of Prop 19 accomplishes that.

Fri, 10/01/2010 - 6:52pm Permalink
Anon (not verified)

I am a conservative.  I want as little government intervention as possible.  I may not smoke pot, but I support its legalization and taxation, just like alcohol.

Let's keep our pot dollars in America.  We have had enough of our economy outsourced; we might as well reclaim the pot economy for America.

Fri, 10/01/2010 - 8:13pm Permalink
Anonymous938283 (not verified)

Gee... your name is "Smarter than you" , you support more taxes, and use the word "progress".    You are certainly quite the statist. "Progress" to you is destroying the constitution and turning this into a European style nation. Instead of working so hard to destroy the country why dont you take your liberal *#* straight to Europe where you belong.

Fri, 10/01/2010 - 8:50pm Permalink
shakes (not verified)

I think the economics goes something like at the low end people purchase pot instead of x product placing burdens on lower income households high end folks never purchase in enough quantity for it to make significant as a cash crop yielding no net tax benefit aside from no prosecution and incarceration. The down side is far greater and the burden of such a bad choice is placed squarely on the low end consumer. Drug use should be stigmatized at all costs and avoided with the greatest effort. Drugs are a losing proposition anyway you look at them.

Sat, 10/02/2010 - 12:03am Permalink
you llie (not verified)

that could be said for any recreational activity you dont personally approve of. In Colorado the government is already counting its tax cash, and its not an insignificant amount as you claim it would be in California.

Sat, 10/02/2010 - 4:29am Permalink
tenexe (not verified)

I'm sorry I didn't realize this was a political commentary about right and left wing policies.  I'm about as right wing as they get and I fully support the legalization of marijuana.  So why don't you save the name calling for another time. I don't understand what the initial poster is talking about as the passage will reduce the overhead of the state in chasing nonsense and at the same time generate incredible amount of income. However the name calling is not necessary.

Sat, 10/02/2010 - 3:28am Permalink
harry canyon (not verified)

i am tired of listening to people talk about how much money in taxes it will bring in just to try and fool people in to voting yes. the gov will waiste it to.

Tue, 10/05/2010 - 10:24am Permalink
bill_51 (not verified)

It looks like California has sealed it's doom. With the passage of that law and if Prop. 19 passes, then California citizens can expect to see their personal taxes skyrocket for medical care, more illegal aliens, a large increase in violence, more broken homes and plenty of heartbreak. Sure glad I don't live in that screwed up state. 

Tue, 10/19/2010 - 8:26am Permalink
Chappy (not verified)

This won't save one stinking dime.  Less prosecutions means nothing.  Does this mean all lawyers will be leaving the office early since they have no cases to prosecute/defend?  No.  Will the judge leave early because there are no cases in front of him?  No.  Will the cops take more time off since they won't be stopping you for possession?  No.  Will the administrators be leaving early because they don't have to fill out the paperwork?  No.  Show me where the savings are?

Fri, 10/01/2010 - 7:02pm Permalink
DrAlex (not verified)

Less prosecutions means nothing.  Does this mean all lawyers will be leaving the office early since they have no cases to prosecute/defend?

No. They will use there time to take on more meaningful cases, like real crimes and murders. Our law enforcement/judicial system is hugely backlogged because of all of the pointless stuff that they have to deal with (like marijuana cases)

Will the judge leave early because there are no cases in front of him?

No, see above.

Will the cops take more time off since they won't be stopping you for possession?

No, see above.

Will the administrators be leaving early because they don't have to fill out the paperwork?

No, see above.

Show me where the savings are?

Done.

Fri, 10/01/2010 - 7:27pm Permalink
Proud American (not verified)

The money saved will be the money not required to for additional prosecutors, judges, etc to handle real criminal cases that are backlogged. Administrators can do paperwork for violent criminals, crooked politicians, etc instead of pot cases. Somebody finally has the guts to stop this drug enforcement madness.
Fri, 10/01/2010 - 9:29pm Permalink
Jesse (not verified)

""This won't save one stinking dime.  Less prosecutions means nothing.  Does this mean all lawyers will be leaving the office early since they have no cases to prosecute/defend?  No.  Will the judge leave early because there are no cases in front of him?  No.  Will the cops take more time off since they won't be stopping you for possession?  No.  Will the administrators be leaving early because they don't have to fill out the paperwork?  No.  Show me where the savings are?""

 

Does that mean you shouldn't even bother doing anything about the overspending then?

Your argument is completely invalid.

 

As with everything, unraveling a large problem takes one step at a time. The point is that now when users are caught, $100 goes straight to the state budget. So not only do you get one step (of many) closer to the goal of eliminating debts, but the state actually earns money on it now.

I'm from Canada and I understand that for goodness sake.

Sat, 10/02/2010 - 2:36am Permalink
WHAAA??? (not verified)

Extra expense? How does making something legal cost more money??? If you took away what tax revenue will be generated by legalization, the state will still save BILLIONS by NOT enforcing current laws alone. Sounds like yet another "Drugs are Bad, Um..K", uneducated statement. Only reason MJ is bad, is because someone told you as a kid that it is.

Fri, 10/01/2010 - 5:54pm Permalink
Robert Abramson (not verified)

Hey genius......guess what.... pot is bad for you. Nothing good at all comes from legalizing this. You are an idiot.

Fri, 10/01/2010 - 6:16pm Permalink
Riley Slater (not verified)

Congrats on being the most ignorant person in the world. Ive smoked cannabis for about 6 years now and nothing bad has happened except me having to spend money on court fees for being arrested for 5 dollars worth of weed.  

Fri, 10/01/2010 - 6:30pm Permalink
A. Muller (not verified)

Congratulations for congratulating someone for being ignorant. Also congratulations for getting caught with 5 dollars worth of weed and congratulations for making it six whole years...oh and congratulations making over $60,000 a year.

Sat, 10/02/2010 - 12:47am Permalink
The Congratulator (not verified)

Congratulations for congratulating someone for congratulating another for being ignorant.

Sat, 10/02/2010 - 3:04am Permalink
Anonymous1981 (not verified)

How eloquently put. Pot is bad for you? What is your basis for judging that? It must be all of the pot related deaths every year huh? I'm assuming that a moron such as yourself drinks alcohol, which killed 331 people in 2001 by overdose. How many people did pot kill? 0. You are the idiot/sheep that believes the ignorant Refer Madness rhetoric that has been spewing out of the mouths of idiots for generations. Idiot.
Fri, 10/01/2010 - 7:05pm Permalink
Reverend Alan (not verified)

You should learn not to believe everything your mother tells you. You believe pot is bad just like you believe God is real: your mother told you and you believed her. Shame on you.

Fri, 10/01/2010 - 7:37pm Permalink
Beware..Begin (not verified)

Regulation costs money. Law enforcement would have to restructure and prevent a potential increase in the illegal drug trade. Government programs such as those aimed at clean needle distributions, addiction centers, etc will need funding. The research supports that the need for these will increase. I'm all for Prop 19 getting passed, believe me. But it will not result in cash barrelling in allowing us to pay our teachers or fund this and that. The economics suggest that the revenue will just outweigh the costs. Vote yes, but know what you're gonna get.

Fri, 10/01/2010 - 6:25pm Permalink
The42 (not verified)

I've NEVER seen or heard of ANYONE using a needle to use Pot, LOL. It is the fact that you currently HAVE to get it from a "Criminal" that "makes it more likely that you will use harder drugs" like they try to spew at us. And I will have to say that the VAST majority of Hard Drug Dealers LOVE that they still get to sell all the Pot too. It means that they have the Opportunity to sell their Customers on Harder Drugs. If you take away their Customer Base, which Full Legalization will do very effectively, they DON'T HAVE THAT CHANCE ANY MORE! Actual Hard Drug Use will quite possibly DROP if given enough time.

Average Breakdown of $50/Eighth (Utah, Current, Ideal):

$10-Dealer

$5-Driver

$15-Grower (Mexico)

$20-"Management" (Mexico)

And the Stats on Schwag aren't much better. Who do you think that "Management" is? Well, it could be Taxes, but only if we legalize it!

Let's put this money back in the States at least!

Sun, 10/03/2010 - 6:52pm Permalink
WHAAA??? (not verified)

Extra expense? How does making something legal cost more money??? If you took away what tax revenue will be generated by legalization, the state will still save BILLIONS by NOT enforcing current laws alone. Sounds like yet another "Drugs are Bad, Um..K", uneducated statement. Only reason MJ is bad, is because someone told you as a kid that it is.

Fri, 10/01/2010 - 5:57pm Permalink
Le Sigh (not verified)

It's all right there in your sample ballot.  Potential to generate hundreds of millions in tax revenue, potential to reduce enforcement costs by tens of millions.  Learn to seek out facts and think critically.

Fri, 10/01/2010 - 6:03pm Permalink
Use your brain (not verified)

The State could make millions WHOREing out your daughter, sister, and mother and taxing it, doesn't make it the right thing to do to balance the budget. I'd rather cut programs and services and live lean for a while than pimp out your stoned daughter.
Fri, 10/01/2010 - 6:40pm Permalink
RevLucifer (not verified)

And if they were willing to whore themselves out?  It works perfectly well in Nevada, as well as numerous other nations in the world.  Just because you wouldn't like something doesn't mean no one would like it.  I've met girls in the cat-houses that love their jobs.  They get to set their own hours, charge their own prices, they can insist on protection, and they get to do a job they enjoy.  All this on top of knowing that the government will be there to protect them if something happens, not arrest them and make their life even worse.

Your capitalization of the word "whore" seems to be an attempt to generate a negative emotional response, the same response you most likely get to the concept of "whoring".  However, if my daughter, sister, or mother, being over 18 at the time, decides that moving to Nevada to work in the cat-houses (or anywhere else where it is legal) is what she wants, then I will support her whole-heartedly, just as I would if she wanted to be a veterinarian, musician, scientist, or any other profession.

Fri, 10/01/2010 - 10:05pm Permalink
boogle dangle waffle (not verified)

The couple of legal brothels in Nevada may be morally wanting, but they work. There are no rapes, almost no transmitted STDs, no pimp / whore violence, virtually none of the sh*t we encounter on the black market and in most every major city in America. The difference is legality and regulation.

Sat, 10/02/2010 - 6:46am Permalink
Reasonable Thi… (not verified)

The State is already burdened with the expense of enforcing the law of keeping it illegal and dealing with the violence related to the illegal trafficking. Making it legal would generate more than a billion dollars a year in state sales tax and completely eliminate the demand for illegal marijuana cartels. "I think it's a golden opportunity for California voters to strike a real blow against the (Mexican) drug cartels and drug gangs," said Joseph McNamara, who served as San Jose's police chief for about 15 years. The state Board of Equalization last year said a marijuana legalization measure proposed in the state legislature could have brought California up to $1.4 billion in tax revenue. Before you vote no, why don't you research the facts instead of following your intuition. It's patriotic to be an informed citizen, it's not so patriotic to be an opinionated citizen with no factual information to support your claims. Why not pay our teachers with money from the legalization of marijuana. A

Fri, 10/01/2010 - 8:00pm Permalink
woodjawoo (not verified)

Prop 19 is a step too far...it will just create more conflict, as opponents maneuver to repeal it in both State and Federal court, as well as hamstring it at the local levels. 

I think Schwarzenegger struck the right balance, with this one...this change represents a sensible evolution, in our policy. The dual-policy of decriminalization and medical use sends a responsible message about marijuana use.

Fri, 10/01/2010 - 9:04pm Permalink
xrazorwirex (not verified)

"Why burden the State with the extra expense of enforcing a new law"???
 

WTF it's basically REPEALING laws that are wasteful.

 

Why waste resources destroying hundreds of thousands of peaceful peoples lives that have done nothing to harm you or anyone else because they posses a particular plant?

 

How does a law that essentially says "stop wasting time on these people" equate to MORE effort.  It would save billions of dollars and thousands of lives wouldn't be ruined.

Don't fall for the doublespeak.

Sat, 10/02/2010 - 12:19am Permalink
Curl (not verified)

Any expenses will be far exceeded by the increased tax revenues made off of this herb. I'd say you have it 100% backwards. This will be a boon for the State's ailing coffers!

Sat, 10/02/2010 - 12:02pm Permalink
stbernardleveeman (not verified)

Legal pot will bring tourist back,take away a lot of waisted police time and could bring as much as 12 billion in tax revenue and in direct and indirect service businesses. Did you know that it is suspected that the liquor industry helped write the criminal laws during prohibition to stop the free flow of pot because it could not be taxed with the then out dated technology. Time for us all to look at the real reason pot is illegal? Is anyone even looking for that other than me?

Sat, 10/02/2010 - 1:52pm Permalink
ogunay100 (not verified)

no if it was made legal and regulated it would make an estimated 1,000,000,000 dollers in taxes for the state to us ass they please it will pay it self off in one year

Tue, 10/12/2010 - 8:21pm Permalink

Add new comment

Source URL: https://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/2010/oct/01/california_governor_signs_mariju