District Attorney Kim Ogg: No jail for marijuana misdemeanors

[soot]

I am just a bit suspicious of their motives! I think it is a good thing,
but keeping the fines attached, means it is still a criminal offense.
To me this says, Ogg is ok with decriminalizing marijuana, but they would like to
keep a revenue stream flowing in.

She's a law enforcement official, not the legislature or The Queen.

She doesn't have a choice in whether or not it's a criminal offense or what the penalties are.

If she refuses to charge, or refuses to seek any penalties at all, she can get herself in a bunch of hot water.

What she's doing is taking a reasonable, contemporary approach to dealing with antiquated and draconian laws.

I don't smoke the stuff myself, but I'm all for full legalization.

Until that time, I'd much rather see folks paying fines, even steep ones, when the alternative is 180 days Houston Central.

 

[JasperL]

She's a law enforcement official, not the legislature or The Queen.

She doesn't have a choice in whether or not it's a criminal offense or what the penalties are.

If she refuses to charge, or refuses to seek any penalties at all, she can get herself in a bunch of hot water.

I don't know the law in Texas but around here the DA has a lot of discretion with how to handle small time offenses like pot possession. We have what's called informally at least a "drug court" and the judge with recommendation from the prosecutors can divert those people to alternatives other than jail. If the DA down there has similar discretion, I can't see how she'd get in any trouble.

I'd much rather the DA announce a blanket approach to all such cases than leave it up to case by case discretion, where you can figure middle class and above people who can spend $20k on a lawyer to negotiate a simple deal get the most benefit, and some poor black kid with a public defender who has 500 other cases more likely gets a jail sentence.

What she's doing is taking a reasonable, contemporary approach to dealing with antiquated and draconian laws.

I don't smoke the stuff myself, but I'm all for full legalization.

Until that time, I'd much rather see folks paying fines, even steep ones, when the alternative is 180 days Houston Central.

Of course. It's insane to jail people for even a day for possession of pot.

 

[WCH]

Similar to Austin's pot laws.

Austin, TX, Texas | We Be High

 

[JasperL]

Have you met any crack heads or meth addicts recently?

I have!! Lots of drunks too! And opiate addicts!

No one is saying drug use is a good thing. Some of us believe treating crack heads and meth addicts like the public health issue they are will work better than sending them to jail where we pay $20-30k per year to house and feed them but give them little or no drug treatment, and they get out and start the whole process all over again. It's hard to see the benefits of our War on Drugs unless you're a prison company or supply them, or supply the hardware for the drug task forces, etc. or work as a cop.

 

[iguanaman]

No I'm ok with a stiff fine for simple procession

But pot is not harmless, particularly to teenagers

So you are in favor of criminalizing tobacco and alcohol because they are not harmless to teenagers either.

 

[longview]

She's a law enforcement official, not the legislature or The Queen.

She doesn't have a choice in whether or not it's a criminal offense or what the penalties are.

If she refuses to charge, or refuses to seek any penalties at all, she can get herself in a bunch of hot water.

What she's doing is taking a reasonable, contemporary approach to dealing with antiquated and draconian laws.

I don't smoke the stuff myself, but I'm all for full legalization.

Until that time, I'd much rather see folks paying fines, even steep ones, when the alternative is 180 days Houston Central.

I agree, that the fine would be better than jail time, but I think the DA has quite a bit of discretion in charging.
Also I don't think many will complain because of the additional revenue coming in, combined with fewer going to jail.

 

[AlbqOwl]

It's not non-compliance. They are still convicted, but the DA has every right to recommend sentence. That the sentence is a fine instead of jail is great news, as that will free our jails for real criminals, like bankers.

But if the law includes mandatory jail time and he overturns that, I see that as inappropriate. Change the law, yes. But ignore it. No.

 

[Mac77]

Yeah. Good thing it's illegal, otherwise such people might exist.

Drunk driving is illegal and people still do it

want to repeal those laws too?

 

[Harshaw]

Drunk driving is illegal and people still do it

want to repeal those laws too?

No, but the two ideas are entirely unlike each other. Drinking should be legal. Driving while impaired by any drug should be illegal.

 

[Mr Person]

Drunk driving is illegal and people still do it

want to repeal those laws too?

We cannot suggest repealing an unjust or foolish law, because then we're logically bound to repeal all laws on the principle that no law prevents all acts it is aimed at?

What an absurd and completely non-serious position. Even you know you didn't mean it.

 

[Mac77]

We cannot suggest repealing an unjust or foolish law, because then we're logically bound to repeal all laws on the principle that no law prevents all acts it is aimed at?

What an absurd and completely non-serious position. Even you know you didn't mean it.

Not everyone considers outlawing harmful drugs to be a foolish idea

 

[danarhea]

But if the law includes mandatory jail time and he overturns that, I see that as inappropriate. Change the law, yes. But ignore it. No.

Sentencing guidelines for possession of marijuana in Texas range all the way from a fine to jail time. Prosecutors are free to decide what the punishment should be. The previous prosecutor in Harris County was a "hang 'em high" type who sentenced people to jail, and once actually charged a rape victim with contempt of court, and had her put in jail because she had a mental breakdown because of the rape, and couldn't testify against her rapist. Ogg is a much better prosecutor, and a much better human being as well. The last prosecutor was a monster who lacked any sense of decency whatsoever.

Seems that a few people don't like what happened, so are creating a fake issue here.

 

[Ikari]

Which is more harmful to teenagers, Jail or Pot?

Themselves, lol.

 

[Chomsky]

Which is more harmful to teenagers, Jail or Pot?

Great retort! :thumbs:

 

[Chomsky]

This is big news for Houston, Texas. No jail time for weed possession. You will still get a fine, but marijuana users won't go to jail anymore. Not exactly decriminalizaion, as possession is still a misdemeanor, but since this is Texas, I'll take it.

District Attorney Kim Ogg: No jail for marijuana misdemeanors | CW39 NewsFix

Great news, considering that this was the state that used to send citizens to prison for years, for possession of a joint or two!

Now maybe they can get to work on their death penalty stats ...

 

[chromium]

It shouldn't be up to her, or anyone else in elected office, is the problem. Any law that allows jail time, or fine for that matter, for weed or anything else that's harmless should be thrown out by federal courts as cruel and unusual punishment

It's inhumane gestapo crap that an actual free country would never put up with

 

[chromium]

I'd much rather the DA announce a blanket approach to all such cases than leave it up to case by case discretion,

Of course. It's insane to jail people for even a day for possession of pot.

These aren't compatible, because somewhere (probably in the south) you'll have insane DAs. The only real way to approach a broken system is do away with it. This is why i favor ending the war on drugs completely and take it out of the DAs hands

 

[chromium]

That the sentence is a fine instead of jail is great news

not good enough sorry

 

[TurtleDude]

This not good news.

But coming from deep blue houston its not hard to believe

yeah lets tax our citizens thousands of dollars a year to incarcerate people who are less dangerous than drinkers. Brilliant idea

A better idea-jail politicians who think that weed ought to be illegal

 

[Jetboogieman]

Themselves, lol.

Truth, very much truth.

 

[danarhea]

yeah lets tax our citizens thousands of dollars a year to incarcerate people who are less dangerous than drinkers. Brilliant idea

A better idea-jail politicians who think that weed ought to be illegal

Especially all the politicians who like to drive drunk, and believe me, there are plenty of those in Texas.

 

[Jetboogieman]

Not everyone considers outlawing harmful drugs to be a foolish idea

Yes but in the specific case of Marijuana, does the punishment match what can laughably be called the "crime"?

At the very least, whether you want to argue about how harmful certain drugs are, yes, we can have that argument all day and you'd find us agreeing more then disagreeing.

But the fundamental principle of law, and how it is applied, we don't jail people for a wide variety of addictions and vices, why do we then, treat even a non-addict who happens to be in possession like a deranged criminal who deserves to be locked up?

If you believe that all drugs, historically associated with the war on drugs, should stay illegal, fine, but let's stop treating drug users and addicts like animals and caging them for simple possession without intent to distribute.

It doesn't make sense and it's done absolutely zilch to prevent drug proliferation, it doesn't help addicts, it makes some criminals and criminal organizations richer than some entire countries and fortune 500 companies...

The policy of prohibition DOES. NOT. WORK.

 

[Mr Person]

Not everyone considers outlawing harmful drugs to be a foolish idea

1. Anyone who has been following the conversation or who hits the ">>" button a few times will see that you've moved the goalposts.

2. You are falling pretty to an emotional reaction, which is clouding your response to marginal risks. The only real risks we know about with marijuana is:

- Temporary short term memory loss and difficulty concentrating, depending on dose, tolerance, amount consumed, for 2-3 hours.


- Possible reduction in IQ for people who (1) are underage, (2) smoke heavily, (3) do so chronically

---- caveat being that no attempt was made in those studies to distinguish between juveniles who did their schoolwork then got high and those who got high and did not do their school work. The relevance is ongoing debate regarding the effect of education, particularly language and mathematics, on IQ, given how IQ is tested.


- A very slight increased risk of emphyzema, provided you smoke like Willie Nelson: Minimum of 5 'standard' (as if) joints per day, every day, for 10-30+ years.

- Potential decreased risk of certain cancers in certain populations.

- Potential fast food or junk food consumption following use.



In other words, merely living in a city is far more dangerous, even when one alone looks at the effect of concentrated pollution on cancer rates (ignoring additional dangers related to crime, accident, etc).

But those are details and facts. Better to stick with a gut emotional response "drugs are bad mmmmkay (unless it's ethanol or nicotine-containing tobacco)", right? Less thought required, plus you get a nice self-righteous buzz articulating that basis of opposition.

 

[Mr Person]

Fortunately, and I cannot say this enough, time really is on our side with this one. The more passes, the more people become educated on the actual (minimal) risks associated with pot, the less people support criminalizing it, the less vast and profoundly stupid socioeconomic damage we do with laws inspired by Reefer Madness propaganda (which, I might add, ultimately originated in the fact that the Bureaus charged with responding to prohibition needed to justify their jobs after prohibition ended).




How does it feel to be a "small government" conservative who supports a set of laws that only exist because a ****ing government bureaucracy wanted to justify its existence for its employees' financial gain, and successfully did so by duping the populace into supporting that effort via anti-pot propaganda?

 

[Mr Person]

The policy of prohibition DOES. NOT. WORK.

Your other points are valid, but in my opinion that would be the indisputable end of the argument were we all Vulcan. It's always been my first argument when generally arguing about the War on Drugs: regardless of where one falls on the range starting with belief that drug use is the most awesome thing in the universe and ending with the belief that it is the worst thing in the universe*, one should agree that the War on Drugs as it pertains to personal use should be ended for that reason alone.

It does not work. It costs us lots of money in tax dollars. It costs us far more in pointless socio-economic damage. In fact, a purely logical creature would have stopped reading at the first of those three sentences.






_________________________
* Even worse than these guys: