|Home|
|Back to Periodicals Available|
|Table of Contents|
|Back to Illinois Issues 1977|
'Present laws are unnecessarily harsh'
H.B. 700 failsTHE House Judiciary Committee late in April sent to the House floor an amended bill which would reduce the Seventy of penalties for possession of marijuana. H.B. 700, sponsored by. Rep. Harold Kaltz (D;, Glencoe) and Rep. Lee Daniels (R., Elmhurst) , originally would have made the possession of up to 30 grains of marijuana a civil offense with a maximum fine of $100. After amending the bill so that it does nor decriminalize possession but reduces the severity of the penalties, the committee recommended the bill's passage by a vote; of 16-0. While the Katz Daniels bill failed to gain enough votes for passage on third reading in the House, it has gained support since last year and was placed on the consideration postponed calendar. The vote, provided by Sen. Katz, was as follows: |
Republicans: Antonovych, J. Barnes, Bluthandt
Catania, Conti, Daniels, Deavers, Deuster,
Dunn, Dyer, Edgar, Gaines, Geo-Karis, Hoffman,
Johnson, Keats, Kempiners, Macdonald, Mahar,
McCourt, Molloy, Reed, Sandquist, Schlickman,
Schoeberlein, Stanley, Telcser, Tuerk.
Voting No, 83 Republicans: Abramson, Adams, Anderson, Bartulis, Bennett, Boucek, Campbell, Collins Cunningham, J. Davis, Ewing, Friedland, Friedrich, Griesheimer, Hoxsey, Hudson, Huskey, Jones, Kent, Klosak, Kucharski, Lauer, Leinenweber, L. Martin, McAuliffe, McBroom, McMaster, Meyer, Miller, Neff, Peters, Polk, Pull Reilly, Rigney, Ryan, Schuneman, Sevcik, Simms, Skinner, E. Steele, C. Stiehl, Sumner, Totten, Walsh, Wikoff, Wolf. Voting Present, 3 |
THE QUESTION of whether or not the
penalties for possession of small
amounts of marijuana (legally defined
as any part of the plant cannabis sitiva)
should be reduced is not only a legal
one, but also involves social, economic,
law enforcement and administration of
justice problems.
Eight states — Ohio, Mississippi, Minnesota, Oregon, California, Alaska, Colorado and Maine — have already reduced their penalties to the point where the penalty for possession of small quantities of cannabis is a fine only, rather than imprisonment. The issue has come to a point for several reasons:
• Widespread use — 53 per cent of
adults under age 25 have tried marijuana.
|
When the facts are viewed in an objective fashion, there is no doubt that our present marijuana laws are not in keeping with current scientific and medical data, are unnecessarily harsh, counter-productive of stated public policy and badly in need of revision. Present statutes divert law enforcement resources away from the control of serious crime, impose totally unjustified burdens on the already overcrowded criminal justice system and engender disrespect for our legal institutions.
More than any other single bit of evidence, however, is the fact that these statutes are simply not working. They do not work either from the point of view of discouraging marijuana use or "rehabilitating" the offender.
In this respect, the Drug Abuse Council stated that California's experience with severe criminal penalties for marijuana illustrated the law's minimal impact on the use of the drug. California had, until recent years, one of the harshest anti-marijuana laws in the country. A Drug Abuse Council survey in February 1975, while this law was still on the books, revealed that 30 per cent of California adults had tried marijuana at least once, perhaps the highest level in any of the 50 states. That same survey also revealed that of those Californians who were not currently using marijuana, the possibility of legal prosecution ranked at the bottom of the reasons for abstaining.
Since the late 1950's, when the penalties against marijuana were at their height, the use of the drug has increased to the point where, in its most recent report to Congress, the National Institute on Drug Abuse has reported that over 36 million Americans have tried marijuana, and 16 million use it currently. Cannabis has become a commonplace part of social activity on almost all levels. Aside from demonstrating the overall ineffectiveness of present criminal sanctions in inhibiting marijuana use, these statistics demonstrate that we are not dealing with a relatively small group of "criminals," but rather with a widespread social phenomenon.
Hundreds of studies have been done on the possible health hazards of using marijuana. Despite the fact that most of these studies were designed to identify any such harmful effect, no credible medical evidence has been found indicating a deleterious effect of marijuana use over either the long or short-term. Similar studies on alcohol and tobacco show conclusively that they are both much more harmful to the user than marijuana, reports Dr. Robert Du Pont, director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse. These findings have been confirmed by the President's Commission on Marijuana and Drug Abuse, the Report of the National Governors Conference, the Department of Health, Education and Welfare, and many others. The American Medical Association favors the repeal of criminal laws against marijuana users.
The greatest danger to the user of marijuana stems not from any property of the drug itself, but from the fact of its illegality. Users are forced into contact with drug pushers who have an obvious incentive to sell other, really dangerous drugs. Those arrested are subjected to the trauma of the traditional arrest
Continued at bottom of page 6.
4 / July 1977 / Illinois Issues
processing, including incarceration pending bond, fingerprinting, photographs and a permanent arrest record , which can stigmatize them for life. Over half of those arrested are under the age of 21. Users of the drug know that their behavior brands them as criminals. Given their awareness of the fact that the drug is relatively innocuous when compared to tobacco or alcohol, this seems an inconsistent and discriminatory sanction which tends to alienate them from our legal institutions.
The greatest cumulative burden of the present penalties falls not on the user, or even dealer, however, but on law enforcement agencies and on the courts. In Illinois alone, according to the Department of Law Enforcement, there were some 20,000 arrests for possession of under 30 grams (one ounce) of marijuana. The Illinois Economic and Fiscal Commission estimates the cost to the taxpayers for these arrests at $30 million. After the state of California reduced its penalties in 1975, it reported a first year saving of $25 million.
The burden that these 20,000 arrests a year place on the courts is substantial. It is common knowledge that the courts, particularly in the more urban areas, are dramatically overcrowded and dealing with a caseload exceeding their ability to make intelligent dispositions of many of the cases heard. The elimination of this caseload would be one immediate benefit of a penalty reduction.
Many of the arguments which were popular in the 1930's are still being used by those who oppose revision of these statutes, despite the mounting evidence that they are not valid. The most commonly heard of these arguments is that marijuana leads to hard drugs. "There is simply no valid evidence of anything inherent in cannabis or cannabis use which would make the marijuana user likely to become a heroin or other opiate user," reported Dr. Lester Grinspoon of Harvard University. Dr. Grinspoon's findings have been confirmed repeatedly. All of the data, including the reports of the Department of Health, Education and Welfare (HEW) and the National Commission on Marijuana and Drug Abuse, have stated that there is no property of marijuana which is either addicting in and of itself, or which leads to the use of other drugs.
Another commonly heard argument against reducing penalties is that it will encourage use of marijuana. Careful followup studies have been done in Oregon, which "decriminalized" in 1973. The three studies, which were sponsored by the Drug Abuse Council, were designed to assess the impact of the Oregon law. The surveys were conducted yearly after the new law went into effect. The report of the council was that "there has been absolutely no increase in marijuana smoking since criminal penalties were removed more than two years ago." It is just as illogical, therefore, to say that reduced penalties would encourage use, as it is to say that existing penalties are an effective deterrent.
Public attitudes towards marijuana smoking have changed dramatically over the past few years. Eighty-six per cent of the adult population now oppose the imposition of any jail penalty for minor marijuana offenses, reports Response Analysis Corporation in a study done in 1976 for HEW. Despite this consensus among the public and the refusal of courts to impose jail sentences, the arrests continue.
The legislature should begin to develop a rational long-term marijuana policy for this state.
6 / July 1977 / Illinois Issues