6 ms·

New York State Is Set to Loosen Marijuana Laws

84 points by weu 13y ago

colinbartlett 13y ago
Barely loosen. Like the most mundane loosening possible. Great job, New York Times headline copywriter.
- corin_ 13y ago
  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 13y ago
    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 13y ago
      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 13y ago
        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/ucm148726.htm http://www.fda.gov/regulatoryinformation/legislation/ucm1487...
- smackfu 13y ago
  My thoughts exactly. Given the recent developments in other states, I thought it was an actual newsworthy event, instead of New York getting laws that I figured they already had. NYTimes even sent this article out at as an alert. Guess they were proud of their scoop.
- Alex3917 13y ago
  This is actually pretty big. The fact that it's going to be dispensed by hospitals means that the state is going to have to create regulations governing production and distribution. Even though only a few thousand patients will be eligible, in terms of going towards full legalization this is actually a bigger step than many other states where it's easier to become eligible but there isn't any state infrastructure for distribution.
dmix 13y ago
Loosing laws on medical marijuana? Catching up with Canada circa 1990s. United States is so progressive these days.
- benihana 13y ago
  It's still forward progress. Why the snark though? Is there anyone who doesn't know the United States isn't socially progressive relative to other western nations? The fact that we're loosening dumb laws is good.
  - Aqwis 13y ago
    On the topic of marijuana, the US is more liberal than most European countries. In exactly two European countries, the Netherlands and the Czech Republic, can you obtain marijuana for medical purposes without risk of a fine or in the worst case ending up in jail.
    - stevoski 13y ago
      And Spain - at least, in Barcelona, where there are legal ways to obtain marijuana, and not even for medical reasons.
      - corin_ 13y ago
        Seems like whether they are legal or not is debatable, although the extent of my knowledge on Spanish law is having read this link just now: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_and_medical_status_of_cannabis#Spain http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_and_medical_status_of_can...
        collyw 13y ago
        Its pretty tolerated compared to UK and Austria (the countries I have lived in). You regularly smell it in the street, and police don't make such a big deal from anecdotal evidence.
Aqwis 13y ago
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 13y ago
  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_id=876 http://norml.org/states/item/new-york-penalties-2?category_i...
  - csarva 13y ago
    Even still, when combined with stop and frisk the penalties aren't applied very evenly.
- foob 13y ago
  I can't comment on how the police treat it currently but your quote is referring to the Rockefeller Drug Laws (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rockefeller_Drug_Laws http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rockefeller_Drug_Laws) which mandated a 15 year minimum sentence for possessing or selling above certain limits until as recently as 2009. They have historically been some of the harshest and most punitive drug laws in the country.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- wahnfrieden 13y ago
  My understanding is that many in NY are "gotten" by the additional charges, such as having paraphernalia on them, or merely exposing it or the paraphernalia when the cop asks about it which makes it no longer concealed.
michaelwww 13y ago
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 13y ago
  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.
esbranson 13y ago
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 13y ago
  Chris Hayes nailed it last night: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-tsyNXmDEo http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-tsyNXmDEo
  - igravious 13y ago
    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 13y ago
      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 13y ago
        I too wish Chris Matthews would let his guests talk.
  - hardwaresofton 13y ago
    Good lord, what a fantastic video. Absolutely nailed it. I particularly like this because it's a first-hand, completely transparent account, rather than a second-hand/third-hand/this-might-have-happen account of white privilege.
  - pstuart 13y ago
    Yet one more of many reasons to despise David Brooks.
einhverfr 13y ago
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.
yodsanklai 13y ago
"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 :)

84 points by weu 13y ago

colinbartlett 13y ago

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

corin_ 13y ago
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 13y ago
  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 13y ago
    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 13y ago
      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/ucm148726.htm http://www.fda.gov/regulatoryinformation/legislation/ucm1487...
smackfu 13y ago
My thoughts exactly. Given the recent developments in other states, I thought it was an actual newsworthy event, instead of New York getting laws that I figured they already had. NYTimes even sent this article out at as an alert. Guess they were proud of their scoop.
Alex3917 13y ago
This is actually pretty big. The fact that it's going to be dispensed by hospitals means that the state is going to have to create regulations governing production and distribution. Even though only a few thousand patients will be eligible, in terms of going towards full legalization this is actually a bigger step than many other states where it's easier to become eligible but there isn't any state infrastructure for distribution.

dmix 13y ago

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

benihana 13y ago
It's still forward progress. Why the snark though? Is there anyone who doesn't know the United States isn't socially progressive relative to other western nations? The fact that we're loosening dumb laws is good.
- Aqwis 13y ago
  On the topic of marijuana, the US is more liberal than most European countries. In exactly two European countries, the Netherlands and the Czech Republic, can you obtain marijuana for medical purposes without risk of a fine or in the worst case ending up in jail.
  - stevoski 13y ago
    And Spain - at least, in Barcelona, where there are legal ways to obtain marijuana, and not even for medical reasons.
    - corin_ 13y ago
      Seems like whether they are legal or not is debatable, although the extent of my knowledge on Spanish law is having read this link just now: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_and_medical_status_of_cannabis#Spain http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_and_medical_status_of_can...
      - collyw 13y ago
        Its pretty tolerated compared to UK and Austria (the countries I have lived in). You regularly smell it in the street, and police don't make such a big deal from anecdotal evidence.

Aqwis 13y ago

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 13y ago
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_id=876 http://norml.org/states/item/new-york-penalties-2?category_i...
- csarva 13y ago
  Even still, when combined with stop and frisk the penalties aren't applied very evenly.
foob 13y ago
I can't comment on how the police treat it currently but your quote is referring to the Rockefeller Drug Laws (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rockefeller_Drug_Laws http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rockefeller_Drug_Laws) which mandated a 15 year minimum sentence for possessing or selling above certain limits until as recently as 2009. They have historically been some of the harshest and most punitive drug laws in the country.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
wahnfrieden 13y ago
My understanding is that many in NY are "gotten" by the additional charges, such as having paraphernalia on them, or merely exposing it or the paraphernalia when the cop asks about it which makes it no longer concealed.

michaelwww 13y ago

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 13y ago
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.

esbranson 13y ago

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 13y ago
Chris Hayes nailed it last night: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-tsyNXmDEo http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-tsyNXmDEo
- igravious 13y ago
  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 13y ago
    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 13y ago
      I too wish Chris Matthews would let his guests talk.
- hardwaresofton 13y ago
  Good lord, what a fantastic video. Absolutely nailed it. I particularly like this because it's a first-hand, completely transparent account, rather than a second-hand/third-hand/this-might-have-happen account of white privilege.
- pstuart 13y ago
  Yet one more of many reasons to despise David Brooks.

einhverfr 13y ago

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.

yodsanklai 13y ago

"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 :)