California Decriminalizes Minor Marijuana Possession: SB 1449

ericlp

Diamond Member
Dec 24, 2000
6,139
236
106
http://www.nowpublic.com/world/cali...nor-marijuana-possession-sb-1449-2689659.html

Some good news... I think anyway.. What does it mean?

which effectively decriminalizes minor marijuana possession. If you're caught with less than one ounce of marijuana, your offense will be treated as an infraction (like a parking ticket) rather than a misdemeanor (which requires a court appearance). As an infraction, a simple pot bust will be punishable by a $100 fine.

What Arnie had to say about it...
Schwarzenegger wrote, "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."


According to NORML, there were 61,164 misdemeanor arrests for simple marijuana in 2009 alone, so SB 1449 should free up some desperately-needed state cash. According to priceofweed.com (yes, there's really such a site), average-quality cannabis costs roughly $275 per ounce.


Interesting ... I guess time will tell what might happen when Prop 19 lands on Schwarzenegger's desk.
 

OCGuy

Lifer
Jul 12, 2000
27,224
37
91
It was already decriminalized, but you would get a misdemeanor on your record. Now it is just an infraction...like speeding.

Excellent. Way to go Arnie!
 

drebo

Diamond Member
Feb 24, 2006
7,034
1
81
Personal use of drugs should not be criminal. Manufacture and distribution of drugs should be regulated. Crimes committed under the influence of drugs should be enhanced with much, MUCH stiffer penalties than if they were committed sober.

There's no reason the courts and prisons should be packed full of people who were guilty of these victimless "crimes".
 

GaiaHunter

Diamond Member
Jul 13, 2008
3,732
432
126
Personal use of drugs should not be criminal. Manufacture and distribution of drugs should be regulated. Crimes committed under the influence of drugs should be enhanced with much, MUCH stiffer penalties than if they were committed sober.

There's no reason the courts and prisons should be packed full of people who were guilty of these victimless "crimes".

They prefer to spend billions and lives on a useless fight.
 

bfdd

Lifer
Feb 3, 2007
13,312
1
0
But it was already legal for me to carry whatever I "needed" for medical use. Oh well looks like we will probably pass 19 this November. Woot can't wait to buy spliffs from 7-11.
 

OCGuy

Lifer
Jul 12, 2000
27,224
37
91
But it was already legal for me to carry whatever I "needed" for medical use. Oh well looks like we will probably pass 19 this November. Woot can't wait to buy spliffs from 7-11.

Not going to happen. The DEA will still shut down larger stores.
 

woolfe9999

Diamond Member
Mar 28, 2005
7,153
0
0
Not going to happen. The DEA will still shut down larger stores.

There's no reason to assume they will shut them down any more than they are shutting down current medical pot dispensaries, which is not very often. There are hundreds in the state (it may be thousands now IIRC). There is one in Oakland that services 40,000 people. It's been operating openly for years.

- wolf
 

OCGuy

Lifer
Jul 12, 2000
27,224
37
91
lol no. The DEA is not going to do jack shit once it is legalized here. States rights, fuck the feds.

?????

What? Yes, they will shut down large operations, and no multi-state corporation will participate.

The feds have not even stopped the raids on MMJ like Obama promised.
 

OCGuy

Lifer
Jul 12, 2000
27,224
37
91
There's no reason to assume they will shut them down any more than they are shutting down current medical pot dispensaries, which is not very often. There are hundreds in the state (it may be thousands now IIRC). There is one in Oakland that services 40,000 people. It's been operating openly for years.

- wolf

Because the Feds, including Obama, differentiate between MMJ and recreational.

Walmart will not be stocking MJ while it remains on it's current Schedule.
 

Freshgeardude

Diamond Member
Jul 31, 2006
4,506
0
76
?????

What? Yes, they will shut down large operations, and no multi-state corporation will participate.

The feds have not even stopped the raids on MMJ like Obama promised.


Someone will then sue the federal government for violating the 10th amendment. No where in the constitution does it give the feds the power to enforce drugs.

As of right now, states have been complacent because they agree with it.

Once there is a disagreement, states should win 100/100 times.

but who knows, the lefties in power are going to find a way around it
 

bfdd

Lifer
Feb 3, 2007
13,312
1
0
?????

What? Yes, they will shut down large operations, and no multi-state corporation will participate.

The feds have not even stopped the raids on MMJ like Obama promised.

They will not shut down large operations. People will riot. This is California foo. Step on our toes over our weed and we'll get sober and riot.
 

bfdd

Lifer
Feb 3, 2007
13,312
1
0
You can't be older than 15.

25 and I know Los Angeles area. We fucking riot when our team wins dude. It doesn't take much to set off a riot in LA. Tell people they can legally have weed, then try to take it away from them. That goes up and beyond what is required to set off a riot.
 

bamacre

Lifer
Jul 1, 2004
21,029
2
81
If the commerce clause could be used for pot, why did we need the 18th amendment for alcohol?
 

Freshgeardude

Diamond Member
Jul 31, 2006
4,506
0
76
If the commerce clause could be used for pot, why did we need the 18th amendment for alcohol?


that is an interesting debate id like to hear


most likely has to do with the time period's general opinion and the supreme court judges.