lawrence marjiuana ordinance: we’re the government, we’re here to help
The Lawrence City Commission has agreed to “move ahead” on an ordinance which will allow first-time offenders on charges of marjiuana possession to be tried in municipal court rather than the Douglas County District Court. The Commission can’t agree, however, on how this should be done.
[C]ommissioners disagreed on whether the city should impose a minimum fine on people found guilty of first-time marijuana possession. State law, which is used in District Court, does not mandate judges to impose a minimum fine. City Commissioner Mike Amyx said he didn’t think that was a wise policy, in part because the city needs to be assured that it will take in enough money to cover the costs of prosecuting the cases.
“I would strongly recommend that we have at least a $300 minimum fine,†Amyx said.
City Commissioner David Schauner agreed that a minimum fine might be warranted, but said it should be closer to $50.
“I don’t want to make it so high that it becomes a real financial burden,†Schauner said.
Whether a third city commissioner will support the idea of a minimum fine was unclear though. Commissioner Sue Hack said she wasn’t sure how she felt about a minimum fine. Commissioners agreed to bring the ordinance back — without a minimum fine — but agreed to discuss the issue further before giving it formal approval at their Nov. 8 meeting.
I have a question: Why do we make people go to ultra-competitive law schools, get law degrees, read and write in law journals, pass the Bar, practice as attorneys, and get noticed by politicians in order to become judges? If we are going to take the years of hard-earned intelligence, wisdom, and discretion away from them, then why can’t just any schlub be a judge? [I'm still looking for a job. -ed.] You want to influence behavior? Let the judge determine the fine — say, court costs for the guy sitting on the couch or lawn chair with a spliff and a bag of Doritos, and $500 (or more) for the waste-oid sitting at the crowded bus stop full of nursery-school children. (An extreme example, but you get the idea.)
There is also debate on whether to make first-time offenders go through “an eight-hour drug and alcohol class.” Sensitivity training for potheads? What a perfect waste of time. The reason for this?
City staff members, though, said there was a good reason to require some sort of treatment program.
“If you don’t offer some sort of help, you hear that the system failed them,†said Scott Miller, a staff attorney for the city.
Miller said the city could choose to require each offender to go through an individual drug and alcohol evaluation, which might be more effective in identifying substance abuse problems. But Miller said the evaluation would cost each offender around $150, compared to $60 for the eight-hour class.
“So, we’re doing this to avoid socialist howling.” What a stupid reason to do something. There is a good idea in there, though, despite the fact that these people would need to be slapped upside the head repeatedly before they saw it: Make the evaluation part of a second-time offender’s sentence, and make it also mandatory for anyone committing any crime while under the influence (of marjiuana or alcohol).
The particulars of this ordinance can be debated for a long time. I think most people can get together on the fact that increasingly-complex layers of laws upon “enforcement priorities” upon treatment classes upon ordinances are what we have now, and that they have been a spectacular failure. I believe my proposal, which I discussed some time ago, would dispense with all of that and put responsibility back into the hands of the people in which it belongs — citizens, police, lawyers, and judges.
recent comments