
New York State Is Set to Loosen Marijuana Laws  - weu
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/05/nyregion/new-york-state-is-set-to-loosen-marijuana-laws.html?smid=tw-bna&_r=0
======
esbranson
Coloradan here.

No matter how dangerous and unhealthy you think marijuana is, confrontational
relations with law enforcement and pre-trial detention for marijuana
possession are much more dangerous and unhealthy. Prison is violence, and lets
drop the Newspeak: arrests result in prison.

Its time to end Prohibition. Its time to legalize it.

~~~
michaelwww
Chris Hayes nailed it last night:

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-tsyNXmDEo](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-tsyNXmDEo)

~~~
igravious
That is an amazingly well delivered monologue. Never heard of this guy, must
keep tabs on him, I have new-found respect for mainstream journalism.

~~~
michaelwww
Like Chris Matthews, he has a tendency to talk too much and over his guests,
but he's pretty bright and has solid progressive cred. The guy I really enjoy
is Steve Kornacki, who fills in sometimes.

~~~
zoowar
I too wish Chris Matthews would let his guests talk.

------
colinbartlett
_Barely_ loosen. Like the most mundane loosening possible. Great job, New York
Times headline copywriter.

~~~
corin_
Isn't it a bit of a slippery slope (in a good way - if you support
legalisation), in that it's a much bigger change of policy to go from no use
to a few uses than it is to go from a few uses to many uses. I'd think this is
a big step even if it's short-term impact is extremely limited.

~~~
HNaTTY
The fact that NY laws regarding marijuana would directly conflict with Federal
law is significant. As more states defy the Federal prohibition of marijuana,
it creates more tension between the states and the USGOV. Eventually with
enough tension of this kind, Congress will have enough political cover to
actually do something.

~~~
Alex3917
Their isn't actually any conflict between state and federal laws, as there is
nothing in the federal laws that requires states to make marijuana illegal.
The whole idea of a legal conflict is just a conservative talking point.

~~~
blottsie
The conflict has nothing to do with the federal government requiring the state
government to outlaw marijuana. The conflict is, possessing, selling, or in
any other way distributing marijuana is a federal offense. From the Controlled
Substances Act [1]

"§ 844. Penalties for simple possession.

"(a) Unlawful acts; penalties "It shall be unlawful for any person knowingly
or intentionally to possess a controlled substance unless such substance was
obtained directly, or pursuant to a valid prescription or order, from a
practitioner, while acting in the course of his professional practice, or
except as otherwise authorized by this subchapter or subchapter II of this
chapter. Any person who violates this subsection may be sentenced to a term of
imprisonment of not more than 1 year, and shall be fined a minimum of $1,000,
or both, except that if he commits such offense after a prior conviction under
this subchapter or subchapter II of this chapter, or a prior conviction for
any drug or narcotic offense chargeable under the law of any State, has become
final, he shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment for not less than 15
days but not more than 2 years, and shall be fined a minimum of $2,500,
except, further, that if he commits such offense after two or more prior
convictions under this subchapter or subchapter II of this chapter, or two or
more prior convictions for any drug or narcotic offense chargeable under the
law of any State, or a combination of two or more such offenses have become
final, he shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment for not less than 90
days but not more than 3 years, and shall be fined a minimum of $5,000.
Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, a person convicted under this
subsection for the possession of a mixture or substance which contains cocaine
base shall be imprisoned not less than 5 years and not more than 20 years, and
fined a minimum of $1,000, if the conviction is a first conviction under this
subsection and the amount of the mixture or substance exceeds 5 grams, if the
conviction is after a prior conviction for the possession of such a mixture or
substance under this subsection becomes final and the amount of the mixture or
substance exceeds 3 grams, or if the conviction is after 2 or more prior
convictions for the possession of such a mixture or substance under this
subsection become final and the amount of the mixture or substance exceeds 1
gram. The imposition or execution of a minimum sentence required to be imposed
under this subsection shall not be suspended or deferred. Further, upon
conviction, a person who violates this subsection shall be fined the
reasonable costs of the investigation and prosecution of the offense,
including the costs of prosecution of an offense as defined in sections 1918
and 1920 of title 28, except that this sentence shall not apply and a fine
under this section need not be imposed if the court determines under the
provision of title 18 that the defendant lacks the ability to pay."

1\.
[http://www.fda.gov/regulatoryinformation/legislation/ucm1487...](http://www.fda.gov/regulatoryinformation/legislation/ucm148726.htm)

------
Aqwis
Can someone tell me how marijuana is currently treated by the police in New
York? According to the article, New York has "long one of the nation’s most
punitive states for those caught using or dealing drugs", but according to
Wikipedia, marijuana is decriminalized in New York, which as far as I
understand the term means that those caught with marijuana only get a
relatively small penalty.

~~~
TillE
For quite a long time now, simple possession of under an ounce has been
treated as a civil infraction. Anything else (sale, cultivation) is still a
crime, of course.

[http://norml.org/states/item/new-york-
penalties-2?category_i...](http://norml.org/states/item/new-york-
penalties-2?category_id=876)

~~~
csarva
Even still, when combined with stop and frisk the penalties aren't applied
very evenly.

------
einhverfr
This may be the tipping point regarding federal policy. With marijuana laws
already effectively off the books in California, Washington, Colorado, and
more, there just isn't anything the federal government can do to make up for
it. The average state prosecutes more marijuana possession cases than the
federal government, and now states are deciding not to do this.

I think there's a point now where it makes sense writing to Congress and
asking exactly what Congress thinks they can accomplish in this area without
lifting the federal ban.

------
dmix
Loosing laws on medical marijuana? Catching up with Canada circa 1990s. United
States is so progressive these days.

~~~
beachstartup
is recreational use of marijuana legal anywhere in canada?

~~~
nextstep
Vancouver maybe?

~~~
kyyd
Definitely not.

------
michaelwww
The article makes him sound like an opportunistic follower.

 _" the latest of several instances in which he has embarked on a major social
policy effort sure to bolster his popularity with a large portion of his
political base."_

~~~
Karunamon
That's politics for you. One of the many reasons it's taken so long to get
this far with the legalization effort is that politicians are utterly
terrified of being seen as soft on crime or not being for the safety of
children or whatever the stupid political buzz-phrase of the moment is that
tangentially supports the drug war.

Once more states see how it works out for the few that have dared to step
forward, expect the rest to fall in line relatively quickly. The economic
benefits alone are impossible to ignore.

------
yodsanklai
"executive action that would allow limited use of the drug by those with
serious illnesses"

Because this substance is so dangerous that it may only be used if you're on
the verge of dying. "limited use" of course :)

