Last night Lafayette City Councilor Frank Phillips and Mayor Pro-tem David Strungis were on Channel 4 news describing the first reading vote last week to up Lafayette's punishment scale for possession of pot. The Daily Camera has written about the issue as an associate municipal court judge has resigned over the issue as a matter of principle. City officials say who cares.
This is the sort of increase in governmental authority over people's lives that deserves more justification than was given to City Council. Kudos to Strungis for asking for such detail before he would vote in support. Of all the issues Lafayette has on the table, is this really a huge concern? What is this in reaction to? There are more activities impacting Lafayette that you could increase the fines for that actually cause headaches for the residents - how about the still-unshoveled sidewalks in places? domestic violence? Brainstorm, Council - I bet such increased fining authority could be put to better use.
The next reading is next Tuesday. Hopefully there will be some stats presented and we'll hear more than general "drugs are bad" platitudes to justify essentially another way for the government to collect more money. Small town feel, indeed.
Before people ascribe all sorts of meaning to my comments, I'm focusing on marijuana laws here. Meth and other poisons are a different realm altogether.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
18 comments:
The war against pot may be a losing battle, but put this in the context of everything else in the City code subject to the general fine of $1,000. It used to be just a $1,100 total fine for possessing cannabis while disrupting a government meeting, now it's a $2,000 potential fine. And always remember to check IDs when you give away cigarettes, that's also a possible $1,000 fine.
If this pot ordinance passes, Lafayette government won't really have any more authority to micromanage morals than it already has. Taking away the special $100 maximum fine just tends to make it clear how important it is that law enforcement officials and the judicial system have sound discretion.
But the City's logic is far from flawless. Justifying discretion as a revenue measure is disconcerting, implying that budget-driven coercion may be at work in the process of justice. Nothing new, perhaps. And doesn't the general sentencing law in Lafayette also allow for jail time? Has that been factored in as a fiscal impact?
Is there a problem this increase in fines aims at solving?
I'll give you another example of implying funding coercion, maybe a City Councilor can tell me if this is wrong: A few years ago the city approved adding an additional patrolman for speeders on Hwy 287 with the intention that ticket revenue would cover the staff cost. Wild rumor? Its been out there and I'd love to know if it's false.
I hope this will provide a bit of clarity. Every ordinance we vote on comes with a line item that says "Fiscal Impact." This is because the Council requested to have that explicitly spelled out on our summary page.
I think that may unduly be creating the impression that the REASON for doing something is financial, when the revenue and/or expense information is merely intended to be descriptive.
Welcome Curious. I remember the additional patrol being added to 287 and heard that officials said the revenue generated in tickets would cover the cost of the additional officer. But the reason the patrol was added was also sound as there had been a large spike in traffic fatalities on the stretch of highway. Back to the increase in pot fines, reefer madness in Lafayette?
Dude, it's totally harsh, but something had to be done about the number of pizza shops in town.
Spicoli! Dude! It's been ages. Good times!
But seriously. The Lafayette news has covered this also:
"Lafayette Police Chief Paul Schultz said the change was requested by the municipal judge, Roger Buchholz, to provide more sentencing flexibility in cases involving aggravating circumstances and repeat offenders."
Since when does the judge get to make the laws and decide on them? I thought these were supposed to be seperate functions?
I sure hope the councilors stop puffing long enough to see through the cloud of smoke on this one.
A link to the LN articles would be good here. 2 councilors were on the fence. Maybe they should follow the lead of Mayor Pro Tem Strungis and fall on the right side of this issue.
I wonder how many people who are already struggling will be worse off because of penalties like this? These types of penalties have been shown to do nothing to curb crime. They just make it look like the folks in charge are doing something.
I was out of town when the council voted on first reading on the change in fines and sentence for possession of marijuana. So here is your chance to weigh in to help me decide.
To me, there are two major pieces to the discussion:
1. Should the city have an ordinance and should it be enforced?
As an empty nester with two adult sons, I wonder how I would have handled them coming home stoned from high school saying, "Dad, it's legal. What's the problem?" It was tough enough keeping the booze away from them.
2. If you say yes to 1., should the violators pay a bigger fine and what should that be?
Now if you use the CPI, $100 in 1989 has a value of $65 today. So in real terms, the fine has been dropping. (If you don't accept this fact, see your retirement advisor right away).
The costs of our police department and municipal court have gone up a lot faster than the CPI. So if the violators aren't paying their fair share of the cost of enforcement after being caught and convicted, who does? And what about the repeat offender? The taxpayer gets stuck with the bill.
A few years ago, there were 5 motor vehicle deaths on 287 in one year. So the city was faced with either addressing the issue or not. (I suggest you take a civilian ride along with the police officer who patrols 287 at evening rush hour on a Friday night. Stopping speeders doing 85 to 90 mph was the norm. And often they were passing the patrol car at that speed.) The decision was made to increase the enforcement. But it had to be paid for. So yes, enforcement of the speed limits in town has increased, and increasing public safety has also helped pay for the enforcement.
As an empty nester with two adult sons, I wonder how would have handled them coming home stoned from school saying, "Dad, it's legal. What's the problem?"
So please weigh in on 1. or 2.
Thanks.
(I find it curious that Dan on one hadn thinks the city should get more revenue but on the other hand if it comes from fines government can't be trusted. Oops.....)
Kerry! Big difference, you know that. Sales tax revenue comes from voluntary purchases that I would argue are blanketly safe (It's how you use the chainsaw that may be illegal...) I have problems with big fines for this particular activity, which I would argue is also "safe", or at least not hurting the public. This said from a man without kids yet...
That's right. The only way you get any money is if you bust people for something that is questionably illegal. Don't make arrests for small time offenses, and the system won't be burdened with the expense of dealing with it! Besides, as Spicoli pointed out, more food will be sold in town, thus increasing tax revenue. Most Councilors are all over new tax revenue these days. Boulder's way of dealing with this is to ask that police focus on some things that are more important. If they find someone, say a city councilor, they can actually choose another option for enforcement. If it's a regular citizen... well let's hope they have a good lawyer.
We do seem to have an anti-prohibition crowd here.
One observation: Most kids these days will tell you that it's as easy, if not easier, to get pot than booze. Just listen to the conversations on RTD when you're on a route going by a high school, for example.
The idea that making pot illegal has exerted strict control over availability is always brought up by the fear mongers - "we wouldn't want to relax penalties for possession of pot or the kids might get it" - but that is really ludicrous, or maybe just quaint.
Changing this fine is not going to have any effect on supply. While criminal penalties undoubtedly do have an impact on demand, it is really questionable whether the effect is cost-benefit justified. As in, there is a cost associated with making marijuana illegal, what is the benefit?
Second reading of this ordinance has been pulled from our next agenda so council can get more information before deliberating further.
This issue was presented to the council as providing the judge more flexibility with repeat offender situations and making the maximum penalty consistent with the current maximum penalty for ordinance violations. Note this is the maximum possible penalty, not the minimum nor mandatory. This is not about making possession illegal, that has already been on the books for a long time and is a separate debate. Now that the judge has publicly stated he does not intend ever to use the jail option I am puzzled as to why he requested it in the first place. It is bad policy to pass penalties that are never intended to be used. In hindsight I agree with councilor Strungis that more information is necessary before taking further action.
Dan,
I would contend just the opposite. As they say, there are two certainties in life, death and taxes.
It's virtually impossible for the everyday citizen to avoid taxes. It's essentially involuntary. However, a law biding citizen can avoid fines of any amount by obeying the law. Choosing to expose one's self to arrest and a fine is a voluntary action.
Now define a large fine. Is it $100, $200, etc.? Lots of cars in the Centaurus parking lot and basketball shoes get snapped up at $150 a pair. The typical DUI fine for first offense is around $200.
As for not having kids yet, the big things happening today are body piercing, tatooing, STD, ectasy, and pot. Meth use is dramatically on the rise. Now fast forward 10-15 years and wonder what will be the big behaviorial things then.
Good luck.
Thanks Kerery, you gave me a great idea. Let's have a huge rave/jam music festival once WalMart moves. The ravers can have WalMart and the jammers can have the old Albertson's. Once they're all inside the building, then we can bust them all, at $1,000 a piece. Make this an annual event and it will make money for the City just as well as growing the City sales tax base. Brilliant!
Weird. My comment that Kerry responds to above has just evaporated. I'll see if this one comes up. If so, here's some info from SAFER: Amendment 44, which would have completely decriminalized the possession of 1 oz of marijuana for those 21 and over, passed in Boulder County on a 53%-47% vote last November. I'm going to see if there's a breakdown of Lafayette's vote. Just as the annexation vote will show a larger sentiment for policy, so should this vote on Amendment 44
I am not sure what Councilor Bensman's comment has to do with anything, but I do not believe any Federal Court judge has made the statement that he never intends to apply the maximum penalty available for tax evasion.
There may in fact be cases involving repeat marijuana offenders in town that warrant penalties greater than what is currently allowed. After reading the posts, and this is a great thread by the way, it occurs to me that some clarity is needed on what those offenses might be. One example might be a 20-something repeat offender who is caught more than once smoking pot with a middle school crowd. I would support harsher penalties for a case like that as opposed to the harmless adult recreational pot smoker it sounds like posters are defending above.
For the record:
SAFER: Amendment 44 (2006)
Statewide: 41.08% Yes, 58.92% No.
Boulder County: 55.5% Yes, 45.5% No.
Post a Comment