|Home|
|Back to Periodicals Available|
|Table of Contents|
|Back to Illinois Issues 1977|
'Some criminal sanction must remain'
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 |
MY POSITION is that some form of criminal penalties should be retained for the possession and/ or sale of marihuana in Illinois. The controversy surrounding marihuana at the present time is somewhat limited in that there has been no serious assertion made that the legislature should legalize or decriminalize the delivery of marihuana. The controversy centers on the issue of whether or not the possession of up to 30 grams (one ounce) of marihuana should continue to be a criminal offense or should in some way be decriminalized or legalized. According to the current law, the Illinois Cannabis Control Act (Illinois Revised Statutes, 1975, Chapter 56 section 704), the possession of not more than 2.5 grams of marihuana is a Class C misdemeanor. The possession of more than 2.5 grams, but not more than 10 grams of marihuana, is a Class B misdemeanor. And the possession of more than 10 grams, but not more than 30 grams, is a Class A misdemeanor. The effect of the current law is that the possession of a couple of marihuana cigarettes is a less serious offense than many traffic violations. |
I am not wedded to any specific recommendations as to what criminal sanction should remain for the possession of up to 30 grams of marihuana. I would not be terribly upset if the law were changed to read that the possession of up to 30 grams of marihuana was a Class C misdemeanor. My concern is that some criminal sanctions remain. The reasons that I am opposed to the decriminalization of marihuana in Illinois are as follows:
1. Marihuana is still physiologically and psychologically an unknown. The medical effects of the drug are not yet fully comprehended. To take permanent action on the legality of consumption of the drug in our community at this time would be premature.
2. Decriminalization of marihuana will not save taxpayer money. It is true that if a police officer goes to court to testify on a case, in many communities around the state he is paid overtime for that appearance. It is also true that in a large percentage of cases the marihuana arrest is incident to some other arrest and the apprehension for violation of the Cannabis Control Act was not the result of an investigation conducted for that purpose. A study done by the Los Angeles Police Department in 1974 showed that 88.4 per cent of the marihuana arrests conducted in Los Angeles in the first three months of 1974 were made as the result of chance encounters by uniformed field officers. In an article by Chief Edward Davis of Los Angeles published in the Police Chief magazine (March 1975), Davis said:
In light of this statement, it is also apparent that decriminalization of marihuana would not have the effect at all of freeing police to work on "more serious crimes which occur in the community," as suggested by many proponents of decriminalization. All proposals for decriminalization that I have seen contain the substitution of a civil penalty which would require a due process hearing with presentation of physical evidence and officer testimony if the defendant demanded a hearing.
3. Those who are in the business of selling marihuana are also in the business of selling other drugs -- LSD, MDA, PCP, STP, cocaine and heroin. Marihuana is only one of the wares made available by the pusher. It is true that there are a number of people in any community, typically young people, who engage in the casual delivery of drugs to friends and acquaintances. But for anyone to believe that the majority of drug deliveries, which occur in Illinois, involve that type of casual delivery is to assume an extremely naive posture. Every community has its established drug dealers, and typically they sell a variety of drugs. If we were to decriminalize marihuana in Illinois, we would be exposing persons buying marihuana to a sales pitch to possibly more dangerous drugs when purchasing marihuana.
4. Decriminalization of marihuana would not encourage respect for the law. One of the major contentions of the proponents of decriminalization is that since a large number of young people use marihuana knowing it to be in violation of the law, that use
Continued at top of page 6.
July 1977 / Illinois Issues / 5
consequently engenders in their minds a disrespect for other laws. This is hogwash! Many young people who use marihuana are using it because, among other reasons, they are responding to pressure from their peers, in the same manner that young people 15 years ago were going out on a country road to drink a six-pack of beer, knowing that it was in violation of the Illinois liquor laws. It would appear to me that a great deal more disrespect for the law would be engendered if individuals could possess an amount of marihuana without violating the criminal law, but had to go to law breakers (dealers) to buy it.
5. No marketed machine exists to readily measure the level of marihuana in the blood. At the present time there is no machine on the market, such as the breathalyzer machine for alcohol, which can readily determine the existence or the degree of presence of marihuana in the body. To legalize or to decriminalize the use of a drug which has the same potential as alcohol for inducing intoxication without the ability to readily determine an abuse of that drug while a person is using a motor vehicle would not be responsible.
6. Philosophically speaking, marihuana is a danger to society. We already have too many crutches interfering with
the quality of life in our community.
Some say: "Marihuana is no better or
worse than alcohol." Question: Are we
proud of the level of abuse of alcohol in
our community? How many legal intoxicants can we afford as a society?
The generation of the 1970's is felt by
many to be the "liberated generation,"
free of the old prejudices and hang-ups of
generations that have come before it. If
that is true, then this generation should
also be the one to reject the chemical and
biological shackles, which are becoming
more commonplace every day. We may
reach a point in the not-too-distant
future when most people in our society
deal with unhappiness by using intoxicants. The basic purpose of law is the
survival of society. To snicker or giggle
or make fun of the danger which is
present in our society today because of
its ever-increasing dependence on drugs
is similar in my mind to laughing at the
hangman. In fact, if you follow my
premise out to its logical conclusion,
you might foresee a day when government actively encourages the unlimited
use of drugs, for the reason that, as long
as reality awareness is impaired, people
will not ask questions that need to be
asked of government.
A number of white, middle-class,
young adults have been arrested in recent years for possession of marijuana. If the truth were known, much of
the impetus behind the present movement to decriminalize the possession of
marihuana comes from the white mid
die-class parents who are alarmed at the
fact that their son or daughter might be
arrested and prosecuted. Such parental
anxiety over the possibility of such an
arrest of their child is understandable.
But to remove the criminal penalties
from marihuana for that reason alone
would be extremely hypocritical. In conclusion, action to decriminalize
or legalize the use or sale of marihuana
would be irreversible. Once society
accepts an intoxicant into non-criminal
use, it is impossible to change the
status of that drug back to where it
was before. In view of the above
discussion, it should be evident that we
are not prepared to make a permanent decision on the issue of marihuana.
6 / July 1977 / Illinois Issues