California Governor Vetoes Bill To Reduce The Penalty For Simple Drug Possession

  • Thread starter oscar169
  • Start date
  • Tagged users None
oscar169

oscar169

Farming 🌱
Supporter
2,729
263
california-governor-jerry-brown-marijuana.jpg

Law Would Have Helped Curb Prison and Jail Overcrowding in California
California Remains One of Worst in Country with Harsh Drug Sentencing Standards
SACRAMENTO, CA — Today, Governor Jerry Brown vetoed SB649, which aimed to give judges and District Attorneys the discretion to charge possession of small amounts of illicit drugs for personal use as a felony or a misdemeanor as the case warrants. The bill, authored by Sen. Mark Leno (D-San Francisco) and supported in the Legislature by some Republicans, as well as most Democrats would have helped reduce prison and jail overcrowding in California and provided savings to the financially-strapped courts because felony charges require setting a preliminary hearing, whereas misdemeanor offenses do not.
“The Governor let down the people of California, the majority of whom support going even farther than this bill would have gone,” said Lynne Lyman, California state director for the Drug Policy Alliance, one of the bill sponsors. “The vast majority of voters agree with the experts–locking up drug users is stupid, unproductive, cruel and expensive.” Leno’s bill provided a safe and logical opportunity to reduce the number of people incarcerated for simple drug possession.
Despite Realignment, as of December 31, 2012 there were 4,144 people in state prison for drug possession for personal use. The cost to incarcerate that many people in State Prison for a year is over $207 million. Current law provides for up to three years of prison, even for a small amount of drugs for personal use. The bill did not change the upper penalty, but would allow prosecutors or judges to punish drug use as a misdemeanor with up to a year in jail, or divert drug users to treatment or community programs to reduce recidivism.
“Our system is broken,” said Lyman. “Felony sentences don’t reduce drug use and don’t persuade users to seek treatment, but instead, impose tremendous barriers to housing, education and employment after release – three things we know help keep people out of our criminal justice system and successfully reintegrating into their families and communities.”
Two months after U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder announced the nation’s plan to scale back federal prison sentences for low-level drug crimes, California is still struggling for consensus on how to comply with a federal mandate to reduce prison overcrowding. SB649 would have brought California closer to the standard of 13 states, the District of Columbia, and the federal government, which already treat drug possession as a misdemeanor. Drug crime is not higher in those states. Furthermore, a statewide poll conducted by Tulchin Research in 2012 showed that an overwhelming majority of Californians support this type of drug sentencing reform, with 75 percent of Californians favoring investment in prevention and alternatives to jail for non-violent offenders. In addition, 62 percent of Californians agree that the penalty for possessing a small amount of illegal drugs for personal use should be reduced to a misdemeanor.
According to state data, there are 10,000 convictions for possession of heroin and cocaine for personal use each year in California. The majority of these 10,000 sentences are to felony probation. How this number would have changed if SB 649 had been implemented remains unknown because the bill grants total discretion in charging decisions to the local prosecutor. But experts believe that approximately 15-30% of cases statewide would likely have been charged as misdemeanors, resulting in hundreds of millions in savings to state and local governments, including the courts. Anticipated savings would have provided greater flexibility to local governments to invest in drug treatment and mental health services, or to focus law enforcement resources on more serious offenders.
Leno’s bill, which does not apply to anyone involved in selling, manufacturing or possessing drugs for sale. The bill is co-sponsored by the ACLU, Drug Policy Alliance, CA-NAACP, California Public Defenders Association, National Council for La Raza, William C. Velasquez Institute, Californians for Safety and Justice, and Friends Committee on Legislation.
 
Seamaiden

Seamaiden

Living dead girl
23,596
638
I don't know what's up with Jer. First, he's talking about privatizing our prisons. Thank GOD his Dems on the state legislature worked so hard to flumox his attempts to do this, but God damn it! Our prisons and jails are not full solely with violent offenders, they're mostly drug users.

<facepalm>
 
fishwhistle

fishwhistle

4,686
263
Brown doesnt have a clue,didnt the first time he was governor either.
 
fractal

fractal

2,009
163
We are living in the goddamned dark ages. This is total bullshit. Sure, California will throw you away on a felony beef for drug possession but HEY, not a problem if you hop the border and come here illegally. In that case, we'll set you up with a driver's license, some nice welfare benefits, and even let you vote!

I love California, it's my home, but I understand why people leave the state. It's run by a bunch of incompetent fucking monkeys. Nobody should lose their freedom for drugs, it is a victimless thing (don't even want to say crime because it's not) and if you throw someone in a cell for 3 years after catching them with an 8ball they come out with connects and knowledge on how to slang kilos.
 
A

anikas88

3
1
We are living in the goddamned dark ages. This is total bullshit. Sure, California will throw you away on a felony beef for drug possession but HEY, not a problem if you hop the border and come here illegally. In that case, we'll set you up with a driver's license, some nice welfare benefits, and even let you vote!

I love California, it's my home, but I understand why people leave the state. It's run by a bunch of incompetent fucking monkeys. Nobody should lose their freedom for drugs, it is a victimless thing (don't even want to say crime because it's not) and if you throw someone in a cell for 3 years after catching them with an 8ball they come out with connects and knowledge on how to slang kilos.


Fractal didnt you write this:
"Yeah man WTF is up with that 3 year sentence? Should have been 3 years per gram IMO. Fucker should have just been dragged out of the car and executed on the spot, better yet. I'm unabashedly anti-meth, would pull the trigger myself if I had the opportunity to rid the world of a tweak or anyone trafficking meth. "
 
fractal

fractal

2,009
163
Hell yes I wrote that. METH has no place in our society and tweakers are the scum of the earth. I've never seen meth never touched it and still it has caused so many problems in my life from people I cared about getting strung out. Tweakers shouldn't be shot, you're right. They should be crucified or maybe better yet, make a bunch of tweaks go without a hit for 3 days and then give them scissors and tell them there is copper hidden inside the other tweaker.

In a legalization scenario amphetamines would be the only drug I believe should still be somewhat controlled, dispensed by a medical doctor and only allowed a certain amount per month. Even crack is less damaging to society than meth.
 
A

anikas88

3
1
Hell yes I wrote that. METH has no place in our society and tweakers are the scum of the earth. I've never seen meth never touched it and still it has caused so many problems in my life from people I cared about getting strung out. Tweakers shouldn't be shot, you're right. They should be crucified or maybe better yet, make a bunch of tweaks go without a hit for 3 days and then give them scissors and tell them there is copper hidden inside the other tweaker.

In a legalization scenario amphetamines would be the only drug I believe should still be somewhat controlled, dispensed by a medical doctor and only allowed a certain amount per month. Even crack is less damaging to society than meth.

". Nobody should lose their freedom for drugs, it is a victimless thing (don't even want to say crime because it's not)"

Your position is a little schizophrenic. Do you think drugs are victimless crime or not? I know plenty of people who did meth as teenagers who are productive adults now, i also know some who destroyed their life with it. But i can say the same thing about any other drug or even lifestyle vices. I know someone who drank so much coco cola that he gave himself severe diabetes who lost his eyesight at age 30 because of diabetes, should we outlaw soft drinks like some people want.
 
fractal

fractal

2,009
163
Whatever. I don't pretend to have the answer for everything I am just saying if it were up to me, everything but meth would be decriminalized and then all the resources used to fight the WoD would be focused on eradicating meth from the USA. It's too dangerous. No mercy for that shit.
 
K

kolah

4,829
263
Was this the clown who was dating Linda Ronstadt back in the 70's..and admitted to smoking pot?
 
Kin

Kin

26
13
I don't know what's up with Jer. First, he's talking about privatizing our prisons. Thank GOD his Dems on the state legislature worked so hard to flumox his attempts to do this, but God damn it! Our prisons and jails are not full solely with violent offenders, they're mostly drug users.

<facepalm>

When policy flies in the face of common sense and the opinion of voters there's only one answer: MONEY. Incarceration is big business in America and corporations love a captive workforce...
 
Seamaiden

Seamaiden

Living dead girl
23,596
638
Agreed, but I actually though Jer had more backbone and forethought than that. These corporations demand a 90%-95% 'fill' rate. Remember that case back east with the juvenile judge who was convicted of sending kids into detention because of the kickbacks he'd received from one of those corps? This was a few years ago, but I'm sure the situation hasn't gotten any better, because the corps are still around.
 
fishwhistle

fishwhistle

4,686
263
Was this the clown who was dating Linda Ronstadt back in the 70's..and admitted to smoking pot?

Yes the very same one kolah,throwing parties with rock stars in the governors mansion.He is the biggest piece of shit ever and i have NO idea how the dumbasses in our state voted him in again.He panders to the illegal aliens and throws every other taxpaying citizen under the bus,i wont even get started on all the 'FEES' (cant say taxes or it would need a vote to pass)like the illegal fire fee he pushed through on rural residents,dude does damage anywhere he goes.
BTW i dont care if he smokes a TON of weed i just dont think all the rest of us should pay for it:mad:.Cali is such a beautiful state(78-80 here today)but our politics are fucked up beyond beleif and anyone who beleives otherwise has their head up their ass so far they cannot see the light of day.
 
Seamaiden

Seamaiden

Living dead girl
23,596
638
Brown was responsible for the fire 'fee'? And here I thought it was the legislature. I'll tell you this much--all those folks out in Tuolomne Co (Yosemite) who were bitching a fucking BLUE streak about that fee stopped their bitching when the flames got close.

Did you guys know that the state legislature has control of a whopping 7% of the budget? Everything else is voter-mandated minimum spending. ;)
 
fishwhistle

fishwhistle

4,686
263
Fire fee is double taxation plain and simple,cal fire does not even service my area,we have county fire and are taxed for that already.The only reason to call anything a "fee'' in california is to get around a mandatory vote by the people of the state if you call it what it really is which is a tax.If you support that your part of the problem,i have 2 boys that are firemen,one a captain and one an engineer and they will both tell you not one cent of that money helps fight fires,it is all siphoned off to the general fund.
 
Seamaiden

Seamaiden

Living dead girl
23,596
638
A lot is siphoned off to the general fund, but I'm one of those people in a very high wildfire risk area that's served only by a feeble volunteer department, and CalFire. We paid the fee/tax, but we're also getting a cistern. When the house was first built and deeded, the builder had to either install a minimum size cistern, or pay a fee. He paid the fee. Do I think for one minute that if my particular area where hit with wildfire that we'd be top priority? Not for a minute.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom